Re: [GENERAL] Up to date conventional wisdom re max shared_buffersize? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ron Johnson
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Up to date conventional wisdom re max shared_buffersize?
Date
Msg-id 375f0a11-dfbd-ae9a-86c1-5f973b243cf7@cox.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Up to date conventional wisdom re max shared_buffersize?  (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>)
List pgsql-general
On 09/20/2017 01:05 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>
>> On 09/19/2017 05:00 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The DB is 10TB total size with OLTP plus some occasional heavy batching
>>> which frequently correlates with degradation that requires intervention.
>>>
>>> Unrelated server problem forced us to relocate from a Debian/Wheezy 3.x
>>> kernel 1T 144 CPU to the even bigger box mentioned earlier.  And we wen
>>> up a major kernel version also in the process.
>> How did you backup/restore a 10TB db?
> We just relocated the SAN volume.  Takes about 1 minute :-)

Ah, yes.  Major *kernel* version.  Never mind...  :)

-- 
World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Up to date conventional wisdom re max shared_buffer size?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Puzzled by UNION with iso-8859-1 types