Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Martin Fandel
Subject Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning
Date
Msg-id 1117717930.4380.25.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning  ("Martin Fandel" <martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de>)
List pgsql-performance
I've forgotten the settings for the pgbench-tests. I use 150 clients
with 5 transactions each.


Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 15:10 +0200 schrieb Martin Fandel:
> Ups,
> i'm sorry. i've set the following values:
>
> postgresql.conf:
> shared_buffers                  = 70000
> effective_cache_size            = 1744762
> work_mem                        = 32768
> maintenance_work_mem            = 262144
> max_fsm_pages                   = 200000
>
> sysctl.conf:
> vm.swappiness=10
> kernel.shmmax=715827882
> kernel.shmall=2097152
>
> Are the values ok for a 2 GB machine? I'm testing these settings
> with contrib/pgbench. With this configuration i become up to 200tps
> including connection establishing. Is that value ok for this hardware?:
>
> 1xP4 3Ghz (hyperthreading enabled)
> 2GB 266 Mhz RAM CL2.5
>
> pg_xlog is on sda (raid1 with two 10k discs) and the database on
> sdb(raid10 with four 10k discs).
>
> My Linux distribution is Suse Linux 9.3 with postgresql 8.0.1.
>
> best regards,
> Martin
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 14:50 +0200 schrieb Martin Fandel:
> > Hi,
> >
> > hmmm i don't understand which are the best values for shmmax and shmall.
> > I've googled around but every site says something different.
> >
> > I've 2GB of RAM now and set it to:
> >
> > kernel.shmmax=715827882
> > kernel.shmall=2097152
> >
> > Is that value ok for 2GB of RAM?
> >
> > I've set the shared_buffers in my postgresql.conf to 87381
> > (87381*8*1024 = ~715827882).
> >
> > Can I use www.powerpostgresql.com as reference to set this
> > parameters? Or which site can i use?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Martin
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:30:37AM +0200, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> > > >>fsync                           = true
> > > > false
> > >
> > > Just setting fsync=false without considering the implications is a
> > _bad_
> > > idea...
> > >
> > > /* Steinar */
> >
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:30:37AM +0200, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> > > >>fsync                           = true
> > > > false
> > >
> > > Just setting fsync=false without considering the implications is a _bad_
> > > idea...
> > >
> > > /* Steinar */
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> >                http://archives.postgresql.org
>


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Martin Fandel"
Date:
Subject: Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: How to avoid database bloat