Re: [HACKERS] postgres processes

From: Remigiusz Sokolowski <rems(at)gdansk(dot)sprint(dot)pl>
To: Jan Wieck <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres processes
Date: 1999-06-11 11:45:57
Message-ID: Pine.GS4.4.02A.9906111336100.5601-100000@netra.gdansk.sprint.pl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> The defaults in the Apache configuration are
>
> StartServers 5
> MaxClients 256
> MinSpareServers 5
> MaxSpareServers 10
>
> This means, that at startup Apache will create 5 server
> processes that can handle requests simultaneously. When the
> site gets busy and some of them take longer to handle
> requests (especially scripting requests), it will start new
> servers (max one per second) until the limit of 256 parallel
> server processes is reached. If they finish their requests
> and become idle again, some of them get killed if there are
> more than 10 idle Apache processes.
>
> This is normally a good policy. It ensures that small file
> requests can still get served while some long running CGI's
> block their server process.

My problem is, that server is used not only as database server, but also
(and in general) as mail server - I think that tehre are some other
services too.
I've used persistent connections to database (and I think I now understand
why so big processor usage), so postgres processes haven't die after
serve requests but wait for another.
Hmm... I have one question more - every postgres process takes about 5% of
processor time ( I've used to measure top command ) - it is normal or may
be processor is too slow?
Rem

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karl DeBisschop 1999-06-11 13:02:41 Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] postgres processes
Previous Message Jan Wieck 1999-06-11 10:44:05 Re: [HACKERS] postgres processes

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pedro J. Lobo 1999-06-11 12:09:46 Re: [HACKERS] Postgres dies in the rules regression test (64-bit problem)
Previous Message Jan Wieck 1999-06-11 10:44:05 Re: [HACKERS] postgres processes