| From: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for installations with a large number of concurrent users |
| Date: | 2009-06-10 19:57:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20090610195742.GB11594@mr-paradox.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:40:21AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
- We're on SLES 10 SP 2 and are handling a web site which gets two to
- three million hits per day, running tens of millions of queries, while
- functioning as a replication target receiving about one million
- database transactions to modify data, averaging about 10 DML
- statements each, on one box with the following hardware:
[snip]
Thanks! that's all great info, puts me much more at ease.
- The connection pool for the web application is maxed at 25 active
- connections; the replication at 6. We were using higher values, but
- found that shrinking the connection pool down to this improved
- throughput (in a saturation test) and response time (in production).
- If the server were dedicated to PostgreSQL only, more connections
- would probably be optimal.
Ok, so it looks ilike I need to focus some testing there to find the
optimal for my setup. I was thinking 25 for starters, but I think i'll
bump that to 50.
- I worry a little when you mention J2EE. EJBs were notoriously poor
- performers, although I hear there have been improvements. Just be
- careful to pinpoint your bottlenecks so you can address the real
- problem if there is a performance issue.
Sounds good, thanks for the heads up.
Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-06-11 12:14:57 | Re: Hosted servers with good DB disk performance? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-10 17:07:06 | Re: Why is my stats collector so busy? |