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
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) |
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 |