Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?
От | Henrik Steffen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 01a101c28c13$b0c28300$7100a8c0@STEINKAMP обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
hi steve, why fsync? - what's fsync? never heard of it... google tells me something about syncing of remote hosts ... so why should I activate it ?? ... I conclude, it's probably disabled because I don't know what it is .... it's a raid-1 ide system -- Mit freundlichem Gruß Henrik Steffen Geschäftsführer top concepts Internetmarketing GmbH Am Steinkamp 7 - D-21684 Stade - Germany -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.topconcepts.com Tel. +49 4141 991230 mail: steffen@topconcepts.com Fax. +49 4141 991233 -------------------------------------------------------- 24h-Support Hotline: +49 1908 34697 (EUR 1.86/Min,topc) -------------------------------------------------------- Ihr SMS-Gateway: JETZT NEU unter: http://sms.city-map.de System-Partner gesucht: http://www.franchise.city-map.de -------------------------------------------------------- Handelsregister: AG Stade HRB 5811 - UstId: DE 213645563 -------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wolfe" <nw@codon.com> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine? > > The cache-field is saying 873548K cached at the moment > > Is this a "whole bunch of cache" in your opinion? Is it too much? > > Too much cache? It ain't possible. ; ) > > For what it's worth, my DB machine generally uses about 1.25 gigs for > disk cache, in addition to the 64 megs that are on the RAID card, and > that's just fine with me. I allocate 256 megs of shared memory (32768 > buffers), and the machine hums along very nicely. vmstat shows that > actual reads to the disk are *extremely* rare, and the writes that come > from inserts/etc. are nicely buffered. > > Here's how I chose 256 megs for shared buffers: First, I increased the > shared buffer amount until I didn't see any more performance benefits. > Then I doubled it just for fun. ; ) > > Again, in your message it seemed like you were doing quite a bit of > writes - have you disabled fsync, and what sort of disk system do you > have? > > steve > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: