Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections

From: Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
To: Francois Suter <dba(at)paragraf(dot)ch>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
Date: 2003-07-18 16:06:50
Message-ID: m3brvr250l.fsf@varsoon.wireboard.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Francois Suter <dba(at)paragraf(dot)ch> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> I have received a question via the Advocacy site and I am not knowledgeable
> enough to answer. Can you help?
>
> The question is: can PostgreSQL handle between 10'000 and 40'000
> simultaneous connections? The persone asking the question has to choose
> between Oracle and PostgreSQL, and my guess is that they would be relieved
> if they could go with PostgreSQL.

On a big enough system, sure. Each PG connection backend is a
separate process, so you'd need to make sure the process table was big
enough, open file and shared memory limits set high, etc. You'd want
a really big machine, hopefully 64-bit like a Sparc or IA64, with lots
of memory. But you'd want that for Oracle, too.

You'd definitely want to spend a lot of time tuning and testing for
that activity level, but again, you'd do that for Oracle too.

-Doug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2003-07-18 16:07:16 Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
Previous Message Doug McNaught 2003-07-18 16:02:53 Re: Scheduled back up (fwd)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2003-07-18 16:07:16 Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2003-07-18 15:53:28 Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections