On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Willy-Bas Loos <willy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I cannot follow that reasoning completely. Who needs OS level file cache > when postgres' shared_buffers is better? The efficiency should go up again > after passing 50% of shared buffers, where you would be caching everything > twice. > The only problem i see is that work_mem and such will end up in SWAP if > there isn't enough memory left over to allocate.\ That is, 25% probably works best when there is only one cluster. I'm just wondering about this particular case: * more than 1 cluster on the machine, no separate file systems. * need fast writes on one cluster, so steal some memory to fit the DB in shared_buffers * now there is useless data in the OS file-cache Should i use a larger shared_buffers for the other cluster(s) too, so that i bypass the inefficient OS file-cache? Cheers, WBL -- "Quality comes from focus and clarity of purpose" -- Mark Shuttleworth
