Thread: Can I have a look at your TuningWizard generated config file?

Jennifer Trey, 31.07.2009 12:17:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to start with the TuningWizard and then configure the one they
> suggested, thinking that I am starting from good default values.
>
> But I am not able to run TuningWizard for some strange reason, but I am
> actually mostly interested in some few settings that it usually provides.
> Especially
> max_fsm_pages
> max_fsm_relations
>
Which Postgres version are you using?

IIRC those settings are not longer valid for 8.4

THomas

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:35, Jennifer Trey<jennifer.trey@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Jennifer Trey, 31.07.2009 12:17:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I wanted to start with the TuningWizard and then configure the one they
>>> suggested, thinking that I am starting from good default values.
>>>
>>> But I am not able to run TuningWizard for some strange reason, but I am
>>> actually mostly interested in some few settings that it usually provides.
>>> Especially max_fsm_pages
>>> max_fsm_relations
>>>
>> Which Postgres version are you using?
>> IIRC those settings are not longer valid for 8.4
>>
>> THomas
>
> Aha, ok. I am using 8.4. They are still to be set, confusing.

AFAICS, the edb tuning wizard has not (yet) been updated to support
PostgreSQL 8.4. The hints it gives are for 8.3 and earlier. It would
probably be a good idea if they gave a warning for that, but I take it
they don't :-)

There may be other issues as well, so read up on the documentation for
anything else it recommends to change.

As for these two values, you can just ignore them - they are tuned
dynamically on 8.4.


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Self: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Friday 31 July 2009 6:18:30 am Jennifer Trey wrote:
> Is autovacuum on by default?
> or do I uncomment
>
> #autovacuum = on
>
> and
>
> #track_counts = on
>
> to enable it? Anything else I should do?
>
> Thanks / Jennifer

You might check out this part of the manual :)
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/runtime-config-autovacuum.html

--
Adrian Klaver
aklaver@comcast.net

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 15:47, Ashesh
Vashi<ashesh.vashi@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> AFAICS, the edb tuning wizard has not (yet) been updated to support
> PostgreSQL 8.4. The hints it gives are for 8.3 and earlier. It would
> probably be a good idea if they gave a warning for that, but I take it
> they don't :-)
>
> TuningWizard (latest version 1.3) has been updated to support PostgreSQL
> 8.4.

Your download page only lists 1.1 as download :-) Glad to hear an
updated version exists, I assume it'll make it there eventually?


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Self: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 15:47, Ashesh
Vashi<ashesh.vashi@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Magnus Hagander wrote:
AFAICS, the edb tuning wizard has not (yet) been updated to support
PostgreSQL 8.4. The hints it gives are for 8.3 and earlier. It would
probably be a good idea if they gave a warning for that, but I take it
they don't :-)

TuningWizard (latest version 1.3) has been updated to support PostgreSQL
8.4.

Your download page only lists 1.1 as download :-) Glad to hear an
updated version exists, I assume it'll make it there eventually?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:35, Jennifer Trey<jennifer.trey@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
wrote:

Jennifer Trey, 31.07.2009 12:17:

Hi,

I wanted to start with the TuningWizard and then configure the one they
suggested, thinking that I am starting from good default values.

But I am not able to run TuningWizard for some strange reason, but I am
actually mostly interested in some few settings that it usually provides.
Especially max_fsm_pages
max_fsm_relations

Which Postgres version are you using?
IIRC those settings are not longer valid for 8.4

THomas

Aha, ok. I am using 8.4. They are still to be set, confusing.

AFAICS, the edb tuning wizard has not (yet) been updated to support
PostgreSQL 8.4. The hints it gives are for 8.3 and earlier. It would
probably be a good idea if they gave a warning for that, but I take it
they don't :-)

As for these two values, you can just ignore them - they are tuned
dynamically on 8.4.

Jennifer Trey escribió:
> I think I got everything now. Most things where on by default it seems.
>
>
> #------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> # RUNTIME STATISTICS
> #------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # - Query/Index Statistics Collector -
>
> track_activities = off  *#I turned this off

What for?

> #autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.2    # fraction of table size before
> vacuum
> #autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.1    # fraction of table size before
> analyze

Hmm, does the tuning wizard not touch these?

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Jennifer Trey wrote:

> So this is a special request, if you could provide a screen shot with
> perhaps three images, then I could go through it myself one by one and
> do similar things on mine.

As a general note here, the Enterprise DB TuningWizard program is
technically open-source, but the actual tuning it does runs as a private
web service.  They apparently want to keep its implementation details to
themselves and are just providing this as a helpful service to people.

As such, I know I really don't want to see any such output show up on one
of these mailing lists.  The PostgreSQL community at large should avoid
learning what they're doing just so it's clear that any open development
work here isn't taking their ideas.  I hope no one actually shows the
output from the program downthread, once I read this message I deleted
everything else in it so at least I stay clean.

The TuningWizard software redirects you over to
http://forums.enterprisedb.com for support with it and that's really the
right place to ask questions about that specific program.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

Hi Greg!

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Greg Smith<gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote:

> As such, I know I really don't want to see any such output show up on one of
> these mailing lists.  The PostgreSQL community at large should avoid
> learning what they're doing just so it's clear that any open development
> work here isn't taking their ideas.  I hope no one actually shows the output
> from the program downthread, once I read this message I deleted everything
> else in it so at least I stay clean.

What exactly is the concern? I'm for healthy paranoia, but I'd like to
know what exactly you're paranoid about.

I'd rather resolve whatever is bothering you by being direct and
talking to EDB (if whatever this is can be changed), than to have you
desperately deleting threads.

-selena

--
http://chesnok.com/daily - me
http://endpoint.com - work

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Selena Deckelmann wrote:

> What exactly is the concern? I'm for healthy paranoia, but I'd like to
> know what exactly you're paranoid about.

EDB has this program that runs as a web service.  It runs a proprietary
tuning routine (what they call "DynaTune") and gives the results out to
people, which is a nice service they're providing.  No problem with that
and I'm glad they help out by providing it.

But I don't want to see those results showing up here, for fear that
community efforts to provide a similar service would be comprimised by
seeing it.  You'll see people here warning against discussing the design
of proprietary bits of O****e's implementation lest it similarly taint the
PostgreSQL design.  I'm just pointing out that the output of EDB's Tuning
Wizard could be a similarly protected bit of intellectual property.

I already asked EDB last year whether they were intending to release the
DynaTune program and didn't get the impression that was forthcoming, and
it's unreasonable to ask them to, so I don't know what further questions
you might ask them.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

shmmax controls the maximum amount of memory to be allocated for shared memory,
(1,999,999,999 in this instance.)

Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.

$ sysctl -w kernel.shmmax=134217728
$ sysctl -w kernel.shmall=2097152

kernel.shmmax=10486808576

kernel.shmmall=?? What should be here? Leave it alone? I am thinking I shouldn't include this, only the above one... right?

Thanks in advance / Jen