Re: shared_buffers advice - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Paul McGarry
Subject Re: shared_buffers advice
Date
Msg-id a056b1d41003111619v24353d5aodd1c1dfaaf0d251d@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: shared_buffers advice  (Ben Chobot <bench@silentmedia.com>)
Responses Re: shared_buffers advice  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On 11 March 2010 16:16, Ben Chobot <bench@silentmedia.com> wrote:

> I *can* say a 10GB shared_buffer value is working "well" with my 128GB of RAM..... whether or not it's "optimal," I
couldn'tsay without a lot of experimentation I can't afford to do right now. You might have a look at the
pg_buffercachecontrib module. It can tell you how utilized your shared buffers are. 

Thanks Ben and Greg,

I shall start with something relatively sane (such as 10GB) and then
see how we go from there.

Once this server has brought online and bedded in I will be updating
our other three servers which are identical in hardware spec and all
have the same replicated data so I'll be able to do some real world
tests with different settings withn the same load.

(Currently one is currently running postgresql 8.1 on 32bit OS under a
VM, the other two running 8.3 on 64bit OS with 64gig of memory but
with Postgres still tuned for the 8 gigs the servers originally had
and under a VM).

Paul

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Paul McGarry
Date:
Subject: shared_buffers advice
Next
From: Ognjen Blagojevic
Date:
Subject: [offtopic] Problems subscribing to Postgres mailing lists