| From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steve Lane" <slane(at)fmpro(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Scaling postgres |
| Date: | 2002-04-14 03:40:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20020413234051.5af242e9.nconway@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:24:07 -0500
"Steve Lane" <slane(at)fmpro(dot)com> wrote:
> Apache and Postgres are actually right on the same box. Any suggestions as
> to an appropriate value for KeepAliveTimeout under those circumstances?
I think the usefulness of KeepAlives varies directly with the proportion
of your clients that are on slow connections. If this is a LAN situation,
I'd be inclined to disable KeepAlives entirely. If it's a more
heterogenous environment, I'm not sure I can give you any canonical
figures -- if you can setup a benchmarking environment in which you
have multiple clients using different connection speeds (perhaps
simulated), that would probably give you the best data.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-04-14 03:48:22 | PostgreSQL 7.2.1-2PGDG RPMs available for RedHat-skipjack 7.2.93 and RedHat 6.2/SPARC |
| Previous Message | Steve Lane | 2002-04-14 03:24:07 | Re: Scaling postgres |