>>Sorry, I meant 30,000 with 300 connections - not 3,000. The 300
>>/ second is realistic, if not underestimated. As is the nature of
>>(realtime information about online gaming), there's a huge fan base
>>and as a
>>big upset happens, we'll do 50,000 page views in a span of 3-5
>First, your posts show no evidences of the CS storm bug.
>Second, 300 *new* connections a second is a lot. Each new connection
>requires a significant amount of both database and OS overhead. This
>is why all the other web developers use a connection pool.
I would second this. You need to be running a connection pool and
probably multiple web servers in
front of that. You are talking about a huge amount of connections in
that amount of time.
>In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if your lockups are on the OS level,
>even; I don't recall that you cited what OS you're using, but I can
>imagine locking up Linux 2.4 trying to spawn 300 new processes a
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Jason Coene||Date: 2004-09-24 01:23:51|
|Subject: Re: Caching of Queries (now with pgpool)|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2004-09-24 00:05:58|
|Subject: Re: Caching of Queries|