W dniu 2017-03-30 11:45:55 użytkownik pinker <pin...@onet.eu> napisał:
> Hi,
> I'm currently testing performance with and without huge pages. Documentation
> says that in order to estimate the number of huge pages needed one should
> check the postmaster's VmPeak value. I wonder if it's only postmaster memory
> usage what's matters? Or I could get better estimation from the most memory
> intensive postgres process - not necessarly postmaster? I'm using following
> command to check it:
> for i in $(ps -ef | grep postgres|awk '{print $2}'); do grep ^VmPeak
> /proc/${i}/status|awk '{print $2}' >> log; done; sort -n -r log | head -1
>
> I'm asking because some other process takes 606788kB while postmaster only
> 280444kB.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.postgresql-archive.org/Huge-Pages-setting-the-right-value-tp5952972.html
> Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
or maybe sum of all processes?
I assume that memory allocated by postmaster means shared buffers, so if one
wants to huge pages beeing used for sorting as well then should set some bigger
number of huge pages in the kernel? Is it a right assumption?
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
