Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout
Date: 2005-02-24 03:24:57
Message-ID: m3y8de7i7q.fsf@knuth.knuth.cbbrowne.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

teolupus(at)gmail(dot)com ("Bruno Almeida do Lago") wrote:
> Is there a real limit for max_connections? Here we've an Oracle server with
> up to 1200 simultaneous conections over it!
>
> "max_connections: exactly like previous versions, this needs to be set to
> the actual number of simultaneous connections you expect to need. High
> settings will require more shared memory (shared_buffers). As the
> per-connection overhead, both from PostgreSQL and the host OS, can be quite
> high, it's important to use connection pooling if you need to service a
> large number of users. For example, 150 active connections on a medium-end
> 32-bit Linux server will consume significant system resources, and 600 is
> about the limit."

Right now, I have an Opteron box with:
a) A load average of about 0.1, possibly less ;-), and
b) 570 concurrent connections.

Having so connections is something of a "fool's errand," as it really
is ludicrously unnecessary, but I wouldn't be too afraid of having
1000 connections on that box, as long as they're being used for
relatively small transactions.

You can, of course, kill performance on any not-outrageously-large
system if a few of those users are doing big queries...
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','gmail.com').
http://cbbrowne.com/info/slony.html
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it.
-- Groucho Marx

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2) 2005-02-24 08:28:47 Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-02-23 22:56:41 Re: PostgreSQL is extremely slow on Windows