On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 16:38 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Robert Fitzpatrick <lists@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Why does everyone leave of the IO subsystem? It's almost as if many > people don't realize that disks exist ... > > With 2G of RAM, and a DB that's about 3G, then there's at least a G of > database data _not_ in memory at any time. As a result, disk speed is > important, and _could_ be part of your problem. You're not using RAID > 5 are you? Yes, using RAID 5, not good? RAID 5 with hot fix total of 4 drives. All SATA 80GB drives giving me little under 300GB to work with. Also, my nightly backup does a pg_dump of the one database and vacuums only that database as there are no other except template#'s. Then it does a pg_dumpall. Now, I noticed that we have the -dD flags on pg_dumpall, not sure why, I took them off. But the strange thing I am finding is while my one database using a 'pg_dump -F c' only comes out at 930MB while the pg_dumpall results in 3GB, is that due to the use of INSERTS by using -dD? > > max_connections = 250 > > max_fsm_pages = 204800 > > shared_buffers = 128MB > > Unless this machine runs programs other than PostgreSQL, raise this to > about 650MB. You might get better performance from even higher values. > The rule of thumb is allocate 1/4 - 1/3 of the available RAM to > shared_buffers ... subtract the RAM that other programs are using first. Yes, it runs a few other things like Postfix+amavisd-maia+SA+clamAV, but low priority MX so it gets little unless the primary is not responding. Other than that, I use it to run the web GUI (php) for this amavisd-maia mail server where users can view spam/ham caches. Can I determine the amount of memory everything else is running by stopping postgres and look in top to see what is being used? Thanks for the other pointers...! -- Robert ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
