Re: performance problem - 10.000 databases

W liście z pią, 31-10-2003, godz. 16:51, Mike Rylander pisze:
> On Friday 31 October 2003 09:59 am, Marek Florianczyk wrote:
> > W liście z pią, 31-10-2003, godz. 15:23, Tom Lane pisze:
> > > Marek Florianczyk <franki(at)tpi(dot)pl> writes:
> > > > We are building hosting with apache + php ( our own mod_virtual module
> > > > ) with about 10.000 wirtul domains + PostgreSQL.
> > > > PostgreSQL is on a different machine ( 2 x intel xeon 2.4GHz 1GB RAM
> > > > scsi raid 1+0 )
> > > > I've made some test's - 3000 databases and 400 clients connected at
> > > > same time.
> > >
> > > You are going to need much more serious iron than that if you want to
> > > support 10000 active databases. The required working set per database
> > > is a couple hundred K just for system catalogs (I don't have an exact
> > > figure in my head, but it's surely of that order of magnitude).
> >
> > it's about 3.6M
> >
> > > So the
> > > system catalogs alone would require 2 gig of RAM to keep 'em swapped in;
> > > never mind caching any user data.
> > >
> > > The recommended way to handle this is to use *one* database and create
> > > 10000 users each with his own schema. That should scale a lot better.
> > >
> > > Also, with a large max_connections setting, you have to beware that your
> > > kernel settings are adequate --- particularly the open-files table.
> > > It's pretty easy for Postgres to eat all your open files slots. PG
> > > itself will usually survive this condition just fine, but everything
> > > else you run on the machine will start falling over :-(. For safety
> > > you should make sure that max_connections * max_files_per_process is
> > > comfortably less than the size of the kernel's open-files table.
> >
> > Yes, I have made some updates, number of process, semaphores, and file
> > descriptor. I'm aware of this limitation. On this machine there will be
> > only PostgreSQL, nothing else.
> > This idea with one database and 10.000 schemas is very interesting, I
> > never thought about that. I will make some tests on monday and send
> > results to the list.
>
> Following this logic, if you are willing to place the authentication in front
> of the database instead of inside it you can use a connection pool and simply
> change the search_path each time a new user accesses the database.

Well it's not so simple, I think. If I've got apache+php+phpAccelerator
with persistent connection on. Server holds some pool of connection, but
when new request is made from phpscripts, apache looks at his connection
pool for a connection with parameters: dbname,dbuser,dbserver. So for
each of 10.000 virtual domain ( 10.000 databases ) I would have to hold
such a connection.
Second thing: How to change search_path dynamically ? I can set in
postgresql.conf: "search_path '$user, public'" but it works when a new
client (username,password) is connecting to server, it gets his own
schema with proper privileges (USE,CREATE) and thats all. Right ?

Or maybe I don't uderstand something ? If I will do in pg_hba.conf only
one record:
host any any ip_addr netmask md5
and only one database, I must make 10.000 schemas with proper accesslist
(USE,CREATE only for one user, and schemaname is same as dbusername)
This is what I want to test ;)

Now user connect from phpscript with dbusername=unique_user
dbpass=unique_pass dbname=shared_db
Server holds persistent connection, but it's still one connection per
user, so it would have to have 10.000 simultaneous connection.

I can't see any benefits, with connection pool, or I did not understand
what you wanted to tell me. How to place authentication in front of the
database using, when clients are using phpscripts ?

greetings
Marek

>
> >
> > greeings
> > Marek
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)