On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 03:10:43PM -0500, Erik Jones wrote: > Nope. What we never tracked down was the factor of 10 drop in > database transactions, not disk transactions. The write volume was > most definitely due to the direct io setting -- writes are now being > done in terms of the system's block size where as before they were > being done in terms of the the filesystem's cache page size (as it's > in virtual memory). Basically, we do so many write transactions that > the fs cache was constantly paging.
Did you try decreasing the size of the cache pages? I didn't realize that Solaris used a different size for cache pages and filesystem blocks. Perhaps the OS was also being too aggressive with read-aheads? My concern is that you're essentially leaving a lot of your memory unused this way, since shared_buffers is only set to 1.6G. BTW, did you ever increase the parameter that controls how much memory Solaris will use for filesystem caching? -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
