Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Henrik Steffen
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?
Date
Msg-id 01a101c28c13$b0c28300$7100a8c0@STEINKAMP
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?
List pgsql-performance
hi steve,

why fsync? - what's fsync? never heard of it... google tells
me something about syncing of remote hosts ... so why should I
activate it ?? ... I conclude, it's probably disabled because
I don't know what it is ....

it's a raid-1 ide system

--

Mit freundlichem Gruß

Henrik Steffen
Geschäftsführer

top concepts Internetmarketing GmbH
Am Steinkamp 7 - D-21684 Stade - Germany
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topconcepts.com          Tel. +49 4141 991230
mail: steffen@topconcepts.com       Fax. +49 4141 991233
--------------------------------------------------------
24h-Support Hotline:  +49 1908 34697 (EUR 1.86/Min,topc)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ihr SMS-Gateway: JETZT NEU unter: http://sms.city-map.de
System-Partner gesucht: http://www.franchise.city-map.de
--------------------------------------------------------
Handelsregister: AG Stade HRB 5811 - UstId: DE 213645563
--------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Wolfe" <nw@codon.com>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?


> > The cache-field is saying 873548K cached at the moment
> > Is this a "whole bunch of cache" in your opinion? Is it too much?
>
>   Too much cache?  It ain't possible. ; )
>
>   For what it's worth, my DB machine generally uses about 1.25 gigs for
> disk cache, in addition to the 64 megs that are on the RAID card, and
> that's just fine with me.  I allocate 256 megs of shared memory (32768
> buffers), and the machine hums along very nicely.  vmstat shows that
> actual reads to the disk are *extremely* rare, and the writes that come
> from inserts/etc. are nicely buffered.
>
>   Here's how I chose 256 megs for shared buffers:  First, I increased the
> shared buffer amount until I didn't see any more performance benefits.
> Then I doubled it just for fun. ; )
>
>   Again, in your message it seemed like you were doing quite a bit of
> writes - have you disabled fsync, and what sort of disk system do you
> have?
>
> steve
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting
Next
From: "scott.marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting