From: | Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What is the most optimal config parameters to keep stable write TPS ?.. |
Date: | 2009-05-12 09:36:36 |
Message-ID: | 5482c80a0905120236m3ec8a9c3i53daccbdbde6c668@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
It's just one of the test conditions - "what if there 2000 users?" - I
know I may use pgpool or others, but I also need to know the limits of
the database engine itself.. For the moment I'm limiting to 256
concurrent sessions, but config params are kept like for 2000 :-)
Rgds,
-Dimitri
On 5/12/09, Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> PostgreSQL: 8.3.7 & 8.4
>> Server: Sun M5000 32cores
>> OS: Solaris 10
>>
>> current postgresql.conf:
>>
>> #================================
>> max_connections = 2000 # (change requires restart)
>
> Are you sure about the 2000 connections ?
> Why don't you use a pgbouncer or pgpool instead ?
>
>
> --
> F4FQM
> Kerunix Flan
> Laurent Laborde
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-12 09:55:14 | Re: Timestamp index not used in some cases |
Previous Message | Laurent Laborde | 2009-05-12 09:23:46 | Re: What is the most optimal config parameters to keep stable write TPS ?.. |