Re: Scaling postgres

On 4/13/02 8:04 PM, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 08:45:56PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:38:06 +1000
>> "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Also, an idling client generally does not keep a connection open to the
>>> Apache server. So if you have 800 people changing webpage once a minute,
>>> you're really only going to be handling 15 processes at the same time.
>>
>> This assumes you're not using KeepAlives, in which case an httpd child
>> will wait around for KeepAliveTimeout seconds before serving other
>> clients.
>
> Hmm, the default is 15 seconds. So if you are expecting lots of short
> transactions, this could blow out your connection count to 200 or so.
> Depending on the situation I'd be tempted to drop that down since the costs
> of setting up connections is much lower on a LAN than over the internet
> (assuming he's running on a LAN).
>
> But a valid point notheless...

Apache and Postgres are actually right on the same box. Any suggestions as
to an appropriate value for KeepAliveTimeout under those circumstances?