| From: | Jeff Trout <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | denis(at)edistar(dot)com |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql with max_connections=4096 |
| Date: | 2005-07-27 14:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | FB06A093-7F0F-4407-AC62-B850994CAA27@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:46 AM, denis(at)edistar(dot)com wrote:
> I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with
> 260 pg_pool preforked clients in each machine.
Why did you pick 260?
You don't need a 1:1 ratio. That is the point of the pool. Those
connections are "shared". Chances are extremely high that all your
apache clients are not issuing queries at the same exact time so your
queries end up getting funnelled into those X connections.
I ran with 32 kids on pg_pool and 350 apache processes. never had a
problem.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-07-27 15:08:35 | Re: Backup and restore from 7.4.1 to latest, crossing platforms... issues? |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-07-27 14:47:35 | Re: Wishlist? |