Re: Monitoring number of backends

On 10/23/2013 04:28 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> My page response time is sub-second, and I run quite a few queries to build the page. But also, my server isn't to busy at the moment. The load is around 0.3 to 0.5 when its busy.
>
>
> Wasn't your question to figure out how to make sure things continue to run fine when the demand increases to a higher level than it currently is? If you cite its current OK performance to reject the advice, I'm not really sure what we are going to accomplish.
>

Correct, my current load and response time are fine, but I'll be getting more load soon. I didn't reject the advice. I installed pgbouncer on my test box, played with it, then installed it on the live box and let it run live for a while, until I ran into problems, then shut it off.

>
> Although there are a few new players. Assuming Apache, pgbouncer and postgres are all on the same box, and I'm using unix sockets as much as possible, it probably doesn't matter if I use non-persistent connections from php.
>
> But if I need to move the db to its own box... then should I move pgbouncer there too?
>
>
> That depends on where the bottleneck is.
>

That's my big problem. I don't have a bottleneck now, and I'm trying to guess (without experience) where the bottleneck will be. Judging by everyone's response, pg_connect will be a bottleneck that I'll have to try and find a solution for.

Google did turn up some links about why you might put pgbouncer on web box vs. db box. Thats all well and good, except I'm not sure I can even use pgbouncer as my magic pill. It doesn't work so well with lots of databases. And I have lots of code and batch processes in place so its not gonna be simple to use a single db with lots of schemas.

I'm still undecided on what to do, or if I should even do anything at all. I am grateful for all the advice though.

-Andy