Re: Forking vs. Threading

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, bryan(dot)encina(at)valleypres(dot)org
Subject: Re: Forking vs. Threading
Date: 2004-03-19 15:19:52
Message-ID: DE9C70CB-79B8-11D8-AFE3-000A95AB279E@samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On 19-Mar-04, at 9:08 AM, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Bryan Encina wrote:
>> MySQL and Firebird use threads and Postgres forks. Forking is ok,
>> unless you have many database connections. The more connections the
>> more processes. I noticed while profiling an application that every
>> connection alone was taking over 1MB of memory. This based on the
>> process per connection gripe I have.
>
> Umm.. Notcied how much of that 1MB is shared?

Also, I'd expect that the amount of memory that a busy installation
should be devoting to caching I/O (whether done by the DBMS or the
kernel) will dwarf the amount of memory each backend has allocated
privately.

Assuming the kernel implements COW (which is reasonable, of course), I
don't think the overall difference in memory footprint should be very
significant -- or rather, if it is, it results from something other
than the choice between threads and fork().

-Neil

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2004-03-19 18:52:54 Re: another postgres article
Previous Message Robert Bernier 2004-03-19 14:21:54 another postgres article