| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Brook Milligan <brook(at)biology(dot)nmsu(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |
| Date: | 2000-08-28 19:16:25 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0008281615240.564-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> The only straightforward implementation is to take the parameter,
> divide by MaxBackends, and allow each backend to have no more than
> that many files open. Any sort of dynamic allocation would require
> inter-backend communication, which is probably more trouble than it's
> worth to avoid a few kernel calls.
agreed, just wanted to make sure ... sound great to me ...
> > (note. I'm running with 192 backends right now,
> > and have actually pushed it to run 188 simultaneously *grin*) ...
>
> Lessee, 8192 FDs / 192 backends = 42 per backend. No wonder you were
> running out.
*grin* I up'd it to 32k ... so far its max'd out at around 7175used ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Browning | 2000-08-28 20:49:06 | How hard would a "no global server" version be? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-28 19:04:32 | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |