Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 09:49:05PM +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>
>> AFAICS, memory overcommit helps if a program creates 50mb of mosty
>> read-only data, and than forks 10 times, or if it maps a large amount of
>> memory but writes to that block only sparsely. Since postgres does
>> neither, a dedicated postgres server won't see any benefits from
>> overcommitting memory I'd think.
>>
>
> While this was probably intented to be funny, postgres does in fact
> load 10mb of mostly read-only data (the
> binary/libc/ssl/locales/kerberos add up to about 10mb on my machine) it
> subsequently forks a dozen times, one for each connection. So postgres
> is *exactly* such a program. If you start preloading
> plperl/plpython/etc it grows even faster.
>
> Now, postgres almost certainly will never change much of it so it's not
> a big deal, but it could if it wanted to and that what overcommit was
> designed for: banking on the fact that 99% of the time, that space
> isn't written to. Overcommit is precisely what makes forking as cheap
> as threads.
>
>
>
1. Isn't most of that space program text in segments marked read-only?
2. I always turn on strict memory accounting on Linux. I haven't noticed
that it has had any performance effect. But it does pretty much do away
with the likelihood of having postgres killed from under me, AFAIK.
cheers
andrew
