On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Paul McGarry <p...@paulmcgarry.com> wrote: > On 11 March 2010 16:16, Ben Chobot <be...@silentmedia.com> wrote: > >> I *can* say a 10GB shared_buffer value is working "well" with my 128GB of >> RAM..... whether or not it's "optimal," I couldn't say without a lot of >> experimentation I can't afford to do right now. You might have a look at the >> pg_buffercache contrib module. It can tell you how utilized your shared >> buffers are. > > Thanks Ben and Greg, > > I shall start with something relatively sane (such as 10GB) and then > see how we go from there. > > Once this server has brought online and bedded in I will be updating > our other three servers which are identical in hardware spec and all > have the same replicated data so I'll be able to do some real world > tests with different settings withn the same load. > > (Currently one is currently running postgresql 8.1 on 32bit OS under a > VM, the other two running 8.3 on 64bit OS with 64gig of memory but > with Postgres still tuned for the 8 gigs the servers originally had > and under a VM).
Definitely look at lowering the swappiness setting. On a db server I go for a swappiness of 1 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
