On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 14:42, Doug Y wrote:
> We don't seem to be swapping much:
>
Linux aggressively swaps. If you have any process in memory which is
sleeping a lot, Linux may actively attempt to page it out. This is true
even when you are not low on memory. Just because you see some swap
s
(Sorry if this ends up being a duplicate post, I sent a reply yesterday,
but it doesn't appear to have gone through... I think I typo'd the address
but never got a bounce.)
Hi,
Thanks for your initial help. I have some more questions below.
At 05:02 AM 5/12/2004, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Dou
Note that effective_cache_size is merely a hint to that planner to say
"I have this much os buffer cache to use" - it is not actually allocated.
It is shared_buffers that will hurt you if it is too high (1 - 25000
is the usual sweet spot).
best wishes
Mark
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Increa
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 05:02, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> I agree. For shared buffers start with 5000 and increase in batches on 1000. Or
> set it to a high value and check with ipcs for maximum shared memory usage. If
> share memory usage peaks at 100MB, you don't need more than say 120MB of buf
Doug Y wrote:
Hello,
I've been having some performance issues with a DB I use. I'm trying
to come up with some performance recommendations to send to the
"adminstrator".
Hardware:
CPU0: Pentium III (Coppermine) 1000MHz (256k cache)
CPU1: Pentium III (Coppermine) 1000MHz (256k cache)
Memory: 3
Hello,
I've been having some performance issues with a DB I use. I'm trying to
come up with some performance recommendations to send to the "adminstrator".
Hardware:
CPU0: Pentium III (Coppermine) 1000MHz (256k cache)
CPU1: Pentium III (Coppermine) 1000MHz (256k cache)
Memory: 3863468 kB (4 GB)
