On 12/3/05, Michael Riess <mlriess@xxxxxx> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera schrieb: > > Michael Riess wrote: > > > >> Shared memory ... I currently use 1500 buffers for 50 connections, and > >> performance really suffered when I used 3000 buffers. The problem is > >> that it is a 1GB machine, and Apache + Tomcat need about 400MB. > > > > Well, I'd think that's were your problem is. Not only you have a > > (relatively speaking) small server -- you also share it with other > > very-memory-hungry services! That's not a situation I'd like to be in. > > Try putting Apache and Tomcat elsewhere, and leave the bulk of the 1GB > > to Postgres. > > No can do. I can try to switch to a 2GB machine, but I will not use > several machines. Not for a 5GB database. ;-) > No for a 5GB database but because of the other services you have running > > With 1500 shared buffers you are not really going > > anywhere -- you should have ten times that at the very least. > > > > Like I said - I tried to double the buffers and the performance did not > improve in the least. And I also tried this on a 2GB machine, and > swapping was not a problem. If I used 10x more buffers, I would in > essence remove the OS buffers. > How many disks do you have? (i wonder if you say 1) - in most cases is good idea to have the WAL file in another disk... What type of disks (ide, scsi, etc)? How many processors? What other services (or applications) do you have in that machine? -- regards, Jaime Casanova (DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)
