2017-06-12 7:52 GMT+12:00 Andrew Kerber <andrew.ker...@gmail.com>: > I am sure it does not. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 11, 2017, at 10:50 AM, pinker <pin...@onet.eu> wrote: > > > > Andrew Kerber wrote > >> I can't give you an absolutely authoritative answer, but because of the > >> way hugepages are implemented and allocated, I can't think how they > could > >> be used for other processes. Linux hugepages are either 2m or 1g, far > too > >> large for any likely processes to require. They cannot be allocated in > >> partial pages. > > > > thank you for your help. > > My system is using 2MB pages for shared buffers. I have checked and one > of > > my processes has used 606788kB of memory, so potentially could use ~ 300 > > huge pages, but does postgres can use it for non shared memory? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive. > org/Huge-Pages-setting-the-right-value-tp5952972p5965963.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 > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
In my case, we had the HugePages enabled but not configured in our Master DB Server. When we increased the server resources (More RAM & CPU) we had lots of issues with HugePages. Specially I/O ones. Had to disabled it. Running Ubuntu 14.04 Server @ Amazon. Lucas
