Tom Lane wrote:
Mischa Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Does Solaris have any call that allows locking a shmem segment in RAM?
Yes, mlock(). But want to understand what's going on before patching.
Sure, but testing it with mlock() might help you understand what's going
Folks,
First off, you'll be glad to know that I've persuaded two of the Sun
performance engineers to join this list soon. So you should be able to
get more difinitive answers to these questions.
Second, 7.4 still did linear scanning of shared_buffers as part of LRU and
for other activities.
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
...
Actually, in 8.1.x I've seen some big wins from greatly increasing the
amount of shared_buffers, even as high as 50% of memory, thanks to the
changes made to the buffer management code. ...
Anyone else run into a gotcha that one of our customers ran into?
PG 7.4.8
Mischa Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
vmstat showed that it was swapping like crazy.
Dropped shared_buffers back down again.
Swapping stopped.
Does Solaris have any call that allows locking a shmem segment in RAM?
regards, tom lane
---(end
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 06:22:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Mischa Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
vmstat showed that it was swapping like crazy.
Dropped shared_buffers back down again.
Swapping stopped.
Does Solaris have any call that allows locking a shmem segment in RAM?
The
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:21:34PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
...
Actually, in 8.1.x I've seen some big wins from greatly increasing the
amount of shared_buffers, even as high as 50% of memory, thanks to the
changes made to the buffer management code. ...
Anyone else
Initially shared_buffers were set to 1000 (8MB).
Then, we moved all apps but the database server off the box.
Raised shared_buffers to 2000 (16MB).
Modest improvement in some frequent repeated queries.
Raised shared_buffers to 16000 (128MB).
DB server dropped to a CRAWL.
Versions below 8.1
Tom Lane wrote:
Mischa Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
vmstat showed that it was swapping like crazy.
Dropped shared_buffers back down again.
Swapping stopped.
Does Solaris have any call that allows locking a shmem segment in RAM?
Yes, mlock(). But want to understand what's going on
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:21:34PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Raised shared_buffers to 16000 (128MB).
DB server dropped to a CRAWL.
vmstat showed that it was swapping like crazy.
Dropped shared_buffers back down again.
Swapping stopped.
What's sort_mem set to? I
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:20:34PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:21:34PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Raised shared_buffers to 16000 (128MB).
DB server dropped to a CRAWL.
vmstat showed that it was swapping like crazy.
Dropped shared_buffers
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:20:34PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
What's sort_mem set to? I suspect you simply ran the machine out of
memory.
8192 (8MB). No issue when shared_buffers was 2000; same apps always.
So if all 50 backends were running a
Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
...
Actually, in 8.1.x I've seen some big wins from greatly increasing the
amount of shared_buffers, even as high as 50% of memory, thanks to the
changes made to the buffer management code. ...
Anyone else run into a gotcha that one of our customers
Mischa Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Does Solaris have any call that allows locking a shmem segment in RAM?
Yes, mlock(). But want to understand what's going on before patching.
Sure, but testing it with mlock() might help you understand what's going
on, by eliminating
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 05:01:34PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:20:34PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
What's sort_mem set to? I suspect you simply ran the machine out of
memory.
8192 (8MB). No issue when shared_buffers was
14 matches
Mail list logo
