Thread: recommendations for reducing mem usage on local dev machine
Hi, I am stuck for the moment with 1gig of ram on a win xp machine running a 8.2.3 postgres. With the java website taking 300meg, eclipse taking 250meg+, firefox 150meg+, all of which are going to be nasty to reduce the mem usage of, I am looking at reducing postgres usage (the java website runs on postgres). The db is not really a bottleneck for development, so I am not concerned about reducing things very low. At the moment I have around 10 postgres processes in the taskmanager, 5 of which are taking around 40meg. While the website is very db intensive, I really need to get this down to under 100meg to stop my system starting to swap. Any ideas? I looked at postgresql.conf but don't really know what is going to get the mem usage down when the db is not really being used. Cheers Anton
# melser.anton@gmail.com / 2007-04-14 13:27:33 +0200: > Hi, > I am stuck for the moment with 1gig of ram on a win xp machine running > a 8.2.3 postgres. With the java website taking 300meg, how is it going to scale? -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
On 14/04/07, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> wrote: > # melser.anton@gmail.com / 2007-04-14 13:27:33 +0200: > > Hi, > > I am stuck for the moment with 1gig of ram on a win xp machine running > > a 8.2.3 postgres. With the java website taking 300meg, > > how is it going to scale? It's not! The site is already serving thousands of concurrent users, and running on 8 servers (admin, load balancer, db, java servers, ...) - and it is running fine. I am developing a module, and pretty much need to have everything on my machine, hence my need to do with 1 gig what the real servers are doing with 10s. A LOT of stuff gets cached, which is why it is so mem hungry... Cheers Anton
"Anton Melser" <melser.anton@gmail.com> writes:
> I am stuck for the moment with 1gig of ram on a win xp machine running
> a 8.2.3 postgres. With the java website taking 300meg, eclipse taking
> 250meg+, firefox 150meg+, all of which are going to be nasty to reduce
> the mem usage of, I am looking at reducing postgres usage (the java
> website runs on postgres). The db is not really a bottleneck for
> development, so I am not concerned about reducing things very low. At
> the moment I have around 10 postgres processes in the taskmanager, 5
> of which are taking around 40meg.
It's fairly likely that that report is misleading: most Unix versions
of "top" report Postgres' shared memory as belonging to *each* backend,
and I'll bet taskmanager is doing the same thing. You could reduce
shared memory usage (cut shared_buffers in particular), which might make
the reported usage drop to say 20mb per process, but you only saved
20mb not 20*5.
It sounds to me like you're simply wishing for more than your box can
handle. Have you thought about running the client and server parts of
your development on separate boxes? Or maybe install an OS with less
overhead than Windoze?
regards, tom lane
> It's fairly likely that that report is misleading: most Unix versions > of "top" report Postgres' shared memory as belonging to *each* backend, > and I'll bet taskmanager is doing the same thing. You could reduce > shared memory usage (cut shared_buffers in particular), which might make > the reported usage drop to say 20mb per process, but you only saved > 20mb not 20*5. > > It sounds to me like you're simply wishing for more than your box can > handle. Have you thought about running the client and server parts of > your development on separate boxes? Or maybe install an OS with less > overhead than Windoze? Thanks for your advice Tom. And you are probably right - at work with 1.5gig I can even get this + VS2005 + EntMan 2005 open without it starting to swap. I have had nasty experiences running eclipse in both Gentoo and Fedora (even though the production environment is Suse, so it might even make more sense), and with KDE/Gnome these days, I don't think there is much difference with XP... I guess I'm just waiting till a system with native virtualisation (no more reboots!) and enough memory comes into my price range before doing an upgrade :-). Thanks - I'll just have to keep my open apps to a minimum! Cheers Anton
On 4/15/07, Anton Melser <melser.anton@gmail.com> wrote: > it might even make more sense), and with KDE/Gnome these days, I don't > think there is much difference with XP... Of course you could use fluxbox, twm or something else less bloated ... my window-manager has a 2MB foot-print. Or use vim instead of Eclipse ;} ... would save you approx. 240MB in the blink of an eye. > Cheers > Anton Cheers, Andrej
On 19/04/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej.groups@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/15/07, Anton Melser <melser.anton@gmail.com> wrote: > > > it might even make more sense), and with KDE/Gnome these days, I don't > > think there is much difference with XP... > Of course you could use fluxbox, twm or something else less > bloated ... my window-manager has a 2MB foot-print. > > Or use vim instead of Eclipse ;} ... would save you approx. 240MB > in the blink of an eye. I have long wanted to spend the time to get proficient enough at vim to be more productive than with IDEs... alas, it has just never happened! Cheers Anton