Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgbench could not send data to client: Broken pipe

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgbench could not send data to client: Broken pipe
Date: 2010-09-08 20:35:28
Message-ID: 9771.1283978128@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
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
there.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: David KerrDate: 2010-09-08 20:44:43
Subject: Re: pgbench could not send data to client: Broken pipe
Previous:From: David KerrDate: 2010-09-08 19:58:17
Subject: Re: pgbench could not send data to client: Broken pipe

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group