Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From James Robinson
Subject Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux
Date
Msg-id BF587806-E961-4AB8-9ED9-164F3BA55E75@socialserve.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux
Re: Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux
List pgsql-hackers
Hackers,
Any tips / conventional wisdom regarding running postgres on large- 
ish memory ccNUMA intel machines, such as a 32G dual-quad-core,  
showing two NUMA nodes of 16G each? I expect each postgres backend's  
non-shared memory usage to remain nice and reasonably sized, hopefully  
staying within the confines of its processor's local memory region,  
but how will accesses to shared memory and / or buffer cache play out?  
Do people tune their backends via 'numactl' ?
Furthermore, if one had more than one database being served by the  
machine, would it be advisable to do this via multiple clusters  
instead of a single cluster, tweaking the processor affinity of each  
postmaster accordingly, trying to ensure each cluster's shared memory  
segments and buffer cache pools remain local for the resulting backends?

Thanks!
----
James Robinson
Socialserve.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: recovery.conf location
Next
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: Stalled post to pgsql-committers