Re: shared_buffers vs Linux file cache - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: shared_buffers vs Linux file cache
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1x0R1pkSOMS08pid=c0Ruu6ZwWo_JXU-2cTDL0ivai2+A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to shared_buffers vs Linux file cache  (Huan Ruan <huan.ruan.it@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: shared_buffers vs Linux file cache  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Huan Ruan <huan.ruan.it@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All

I thought 'shared_buffers' sets how much memory that is dedicated to PostgreSQL to use for caching data, therefore not available to other applications.

However, as shown in the following screenshots, The server (CentOS 6.6 64bit) has 64GB of RAM, and 'shared_buffer' is set to 32GB, but the free+buffer+cache is 60GB. 

Shouldn't the maximum value for free+buffer+cache be 32GB ( 64 - 32)?
Is 'shared_buffers' pre allocated to Postgres, and Postgres only?

While PostgreSQL has reserves the right to use 32GB, as long as PostgreSQL has not actually dirtied that RAM yet, then the kernel is free to keep using it to cache files.

 
Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Glyn Astill
Date:
Subject: Re: shared_buffers vs Linux file cache
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Strange choice of general index over partial index