Re: CentOS - PostgreSQL 9.2.13 -> 9.4

Hi Melvin,

On 18/08/15 17:19, Melvin Davidson wrote:
>>8 x 16GB 1600MHz PC3-12800 DDR3                 - 128GB total
>  >>shared_buffers=60GB
>
> I would say 60GB is too high when you have 128GB system memory.
> Try lowering it to shared_buffers=32GB and let the O/S handle more of
> the work.
I have tested all different shared_buffers settings across both
versions, from 8GB - 60GB. 8-32GB were optimal. in reality the
difference from 8 - 32 was minimal.

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com
> <mailto:jeff.janes@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Michael H <michael@wemoto.com
>     <mailto:michael@wemoto.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I've been tuning our new database server, here's some info...
>
>         CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core)
>         3.10.0-229.11.1.el7.x86_64
>
>         8 x 16GB 1600MHz PC3-12800 DDR3                 - 128GB total
>         2 x AMD Opteron 6386SE 2.8GHz/16-core/140w      - 32 cores total
>         4 x 300GB SAS 10k HDD                           - raid 1+0
>         configuration
>         1GB FBWC for P-series smart array               - cache enabled
>
>         I'm using the CentOS provided packages for PostgreSQL
>         Version     : 9.2.13
>         Release     : 1.el7_1
>
>         I'm getting fairly good statistics from this server but after
>         asking for some advice I was pointed towards PostgreSQL 9.3
>         (posix memory management) and PostgreSQL 9.4 (pg_replication_slots).
>
>         I dropped my original install of 9.2.13 above and went straight
>         to the 9.4 from the PostgreSQL repositories.
>
>
>
>     How did you get your data from 9.2 to 9.4?  Did you run ANALYZE on
>     it afterwards?
>
>
>
>         Are there any known issues with my kernel and PostgreSQL? I
>         found this post -
>         http://www.databasesoup.com/2014/09/why-you-need-to-avoid-linux-kernel-32.html
>
>         which states there are known issues up to kernel 3.10.. the
>         reason I ask, no matter how small or big a configuration change
>         I make I can't match my 9.2.13 install. I'm seeing huge
>         decreases in TPS on all my benchmarks.
>
>         for example, 9.2.13, my own extremely heavy SQL file being used
>         here, hence the lower TPS...
>
>         32      37.357197
>         64      34.145088
>         128     19.682544
>         256     9.910772
>         512     5.803358
>
>         compared to 9.4 - exactly the same tests and parameters
>         configured (I also started from defaults and tuned up as best I
>         could).
>
>         32      14.982111
>         64      14.894859
>         128     14.277631
>         256     13.679516
>         512     13.679516
>
>
>     Pick the query that dropped in performance the most, then run it
>     with "explain (analyze, buffers)" and with track_io_timing turned
>     on, and compare this between the servers.  Did the plan change, or
>     just the time?
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Jeff
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Melvin Davidson*
> I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.