On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 04:35:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> writes:
- > should i be running pgbench differently? I tried increasing the # of threads
- > but that didn't increase the number of backend's and i'm trying to simulate
- > 2000 physical backend processes.
- The odds are good that if you did get up that high, what you'd find is
- pgbench itself being the bottleneck, not the server. What I'd suggest
- is running several copies of pgbench *on different machines*, all
- beating on the one database server. Collating the results will be a bit
- more of a PITA than if there were only one pgbench instance, but it'd
- be a truer picture of real-world behavior.
- It's probably also worth pointing out that 2000 backend processes is
- likely to be a loser anyhow. If you're just doing this for academic
- purposes, fine, but if you're trying to set up a real system for 2000
- clients you almost certainly want to stick some connection pooling in
- regards, tom lane
ah that's a good idea, i'll have to give that a shot.
Actually, this is real.. that's 2000 connections - connection pooled out to
20k or so. (although i'm pushing for closer to 1000 connections).
I know that's not the ideal way to go, but it's what i've got to work with.
It IS a huge box though...
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-09-08 20:56:24|
|Subject: Re: pgbench could not send data to client: Broken pipe|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-09-08 20:35:28|
|Subject: Re: pgbench could not send data to client: Broken pipe |