| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "Staale Smedseng" <Staale(dot)Smedseng(at)Sun(dot)COM>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Date: | 2008-02-07 22:56:06 |
| Message-ID: | 87r6fope9l.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jignesh K. Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> for about 500users :
> For about 700 Users:
> At 1000 users
This is a tangent but are these actual Postgres processes? What's the logic
behind trying to run a 1,000 processes on a box with 16 cpus? They're all just
going to be queuing up for i/o requests or sitting runnable waiting for a
timeslice.
Was this with your patch to raise the size of the clog lru?
What is MaxBackends actually set to for the runs. Is it the same even when
you're actually running with fewer backends?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-02-07 22:59:32 | Re: configurability of OOM killer |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2008-02-07 22:52:47 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |