-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
|>>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.
| Josh Drake
|>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
Not to mention that a proxy squid mounted in reverse proxy mode will
help a lot.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Gaetano Mendola||Date: 2004-09-25 17:25:08|
|Subject: Re: Caching of Queries (now with pgpool)|
|Previous:||From: Rod Taylor||Date: 2004-09-25 00:57:15|
|Subject: Getting rid of nested loop|