| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "Anjan Dave" <adave(at)vantage(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why is this system swapping? |
| Date: | 2005-04-28 12:13:43 |
| Message-ID: | 2425e7a6ce717809d308bcc9591f6693@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Apr 27, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> In fact I think it's generally superior to having a layer like pgpool
> having
> to hand off all your database communication. Having to do an extra
> context
> switch to handle every database communication is crazy.
>
I suppose this depends on how many machines / how much traffic you have.
In one setup I run here I get away with 32 * 4 db connections instead
of 500 * 4. Pretty simple to see the savings on the db machine. (Yes,
it is a "bad design" as you said where static & dynamic content are
served from the same box. However it also saves money since I don't
need machines sitting around serving up pixel.gif vs
myBigApplication.cgi)
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mischa Sandberg | 2005-04-28 15:00:53 | Re: Suggestions for a data-warehouse migration routine |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2005-04-28 07:39:39 | Re: Final decision |