From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | PgSQL General ML <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Postgres low end processing. |
Date: | 2003-10-03 20:42:32 |
Message-ID: | 1065213752.1487.144.camel@haggis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 14:04, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 14:08, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > I can tell you from experience that you will get some odd behaviour, and even
> > connection failures, when Postgres is forced into swap by lack of memory.
>
> Why would you get a connection failure? And other than poor performance,
> why would you get "odd behavior" due to a lack of physical memory?
It would take so long for the "server" to respond that the client
might time out.
Of course, back in the day, we supported 70 people on a mainframe
w/ 1.6 MIPS and 8MB RAM. FEPs and 3270 terminals helped, of course.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net
Jefferson, LA USA
"All machines, no matter how complex, are considered to be based
on 6 simple elements: the lever, the pulley, the wheel and axle,
the screw, the wedge and the inclined plane."
Marilyn Vos Savant
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-10-03 20:46:39 | Re: online vs. hot backup (was Re: Type of application |
Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-10-03 20:28:46 | Re: pg_restore takes ages |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-03 20:57:56 | Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance? |
Previous Message | Rob Nagler | 2003-10-03 20:24:42 | reindex/vacuum locking/performance? |