From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Honza Novak" <kacerr(at)developers(dot)zlutazimnice(dot)cz> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: multiple apaches against single postgres database |
Date: | 2007-10-24 13:17:22 |
Message-ID: | 87r6jkslct.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Honza Novak" <kacerr(at)developers(dot)zlutazimnice(dot)cz> writes:
> Hi all,
> i'm looking for correct or at least good enough solution for use of multiple
> apaches with single postgres database. (apaches are 2.0.x, and postgres is
> 8.1.x)
>
> At this moment i'm involved in management of a website where we have large user
> load on our web servers. Apaches are set up to be able to answer 300 requests
> at the same time and at the moment we have 4 apaches.
Do you have 300 processors? Are your requests particularly i/o-bound? Why
would running 300 processes simultaneously be faster than running a smaller
number sequentially? It doesn't sound like your systems are capable of
handling such a large number of requests simultaneously.
The traditional answer is to separate static content such as images which are
more i/o-bound onto a separate apache configuration which has a larger number
of connections, limit the number of connections for the cpu-bound dynamic
content server, and have a 1-1 ratio between apache dynamic content
connections and postgres backends. The alternative is to use connection
pooling. Often a combination of the two is best.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Giulio Cesare Solaroli | 2007-10-24 13:37:07 | Re: Finalizing commit taking very long |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-24 13:15:56 | Re: Finalizing commit taking very long |