On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Stef wrote:
> The initial instance took up 8372K and this fluctuated
> between +- 8372K and 10372K, plus +- 3500K for
> every connection.
>
Does that include/exlude the size of say, shared code & libraries?
I know linux does copy-on-write forking.. so it may be less in realit
Hi again all,
I've tested postgres 7.3.4 on Linux version 2.4.17
and this is what I found :
The initial instance took up 8372K and this fluctuated
between +- 8372K and 10372K, plus +- 3500K for
every connection.
I did quite a few transactions on both connections, plus
a few vacuums and a pg_du
Stef,
> => 1. Make sure that the WAL files (pg_xlog) are on a seperate disk from the
> => database files, either through mounting or symlinking.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how this helps?
It gives you better fsync write performance on a low-end disk setup.
Otherwise, the disk is forced t
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 09:55:51 +0200,
Stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I'll try some of these, and post the results.
> The actual machines seem to be Pentium I machines,
> with 32M RAM. I've gathered that it is theoretically
> possible, so no to go try it.
I am running 7.4beta2 on
Thanks for the replies,
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:08:48 -0700
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=> 1. Make sure that the WAL files (pg_xlog) are on a seperate disk from the
=> database files, either through mounting or symlinking.
I'm not sure I understand how this helps?
=> 2. Tweak the .con
Stef wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=> What exactly is failing? And what's the platform, anyway?
Nothing is really failing atm, except the funds for better
hardware. JBOSS and some other servers need to be
run on these machines, along with linux,
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:42:54 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Postgres is bloatware by design: it was built to house PhD theses."
> -- J. Hellerstein (who ought to know)
if postgres is bloatware, what is oracle 9i?
(after i downloaded a copy of oracle 8i a couple of months back, i swo
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 12:52, Stef wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0400
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > => What exactly is failing? And what's the platform, anyway?
> >
> > Nothing is really failing atm, except the funds for bette
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 14:08, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I can tell you from experience that you will get some odd behaviour, and even
> connection failures, when Postgres is forced into swap by lack of memory.
Why would you get a connection failure? And other than poor performance,
why would you get "o
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 12:52, Stef wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0400
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> => What exactly is failing? And what's the platform, anyway?
>
> Nothing is really failing atm, except the funds for better
> hardware. JBOSS and some other servers need to be
Stef,
> I've been trying to find out if some guidelines
> exist, somewhere, describing how postgres
> can possibly run on less than 8MB of RAM.
> (Disk space not an issue).
I can tell you from experience that you will get some odd behaviour, and even
connection failures, when Postgres is forced
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=> What exactly is failing? And what's the platform, anyway?
Nothing is really failing atm, except the funds for better
hardware. JBOSS and some other servers need to be
run on these machines, along with linux, which will b
Stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Crawling is ok. Won't differ much from normal operation on a machine
> like that. Any tips on how to achieve the most diminutive vmem an
> conf settings?
The out-of-the-box settings are already pretty diminutive on current
releases :-(. In 7.4 you'd likely want
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:42:54 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=> Are you sure you want Postgres, and not something smaller? BDB,
=> or SQL Lite, for example?
I have considered various options, including BDB and SQL Lite, but
alas, it will have to be postgres if it's going to be a databas
Stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been trying to find out if some guidelines
> exist, somewhere, describing how postgres
> can possibly run on less than 8MB of RAM.
Are you sure you want Postgres, and not something smaller? BDB,
or SQL Lite, for example?
"Postgres is bloatware by design: i
Hi everyone,
I've been trying to find out if some guidelines
exist, somewhere, describing how postgres
can possibly run on less than 8MB of RAM.
(Disk space not an issue).
The closest thread I could find in the list
archives is :
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2002-06/msg01343.php
16 matches
Mail list logo
