From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Glen Eustace <geustace(at)godzone(dot)net(dot)nz> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Running postgresql as a VMware ESx client |
Date: | 2008-11-24 11:22:47 |
Message-ID: | 20081124112247.GA3861@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Glen Eustace escribió:
>
>> Generally speaking, virtualization allows you to take a bunch of low
>> powered servers and make them live in one big box saving money on
>> electricity and management. Generally speaking, database sers are big
>> powerful boxes with lots of hard disks and gigs upon gigs of ram to
>> handle terabytes of data. Those two things seem at odds to me.
>
> If one is handling databases with Terabytes of data and 1000s of
> connections, I would agree. We will be looking at 100s of Megabytes max
> and possible several hundred connections. A much smaller workload.
You're not gonna get "several hundred connections" on a resource-starved
machine. Consider using a pooler (pgbouncer, pgpool), and reducing the
number of actual connections to the DB to a very low number of dozens.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrus | 2008-11-24 11:53:11 | Re: Returning schema name with table name |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-11-24 11:12:51 | Re: Postgres mail list traffic over time |