From: | imad <immaad(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
Cc: | Sistemasvi <sistemasvi(at)aerogal(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres Server collapse |
Date: | 2006-11-28 09:42:34 |
Message-ID: | 1f30b80c0611280142p1ad554e0j18cc72f1a2e55810@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Ok sorry.
I missed that "session" thing.
--Imad
www.EnterpriseDB.com
On 11/28/06, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> wrote:
> imad schrieb:
> > On 11/27/06, Sistemasvi <sistemasvi(at)aerogal(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> I have a postsgresql database with max 500 connections. All
> >> development is
> >> in Java (View, Model, controller model). The problem is when I have high
> >> traffic (about 10 AM) when the database server collapse. The server
> >> turn too
> >> slow as It haven´t memory and the swap memory increase too much. I
> >> must kill
> >> all postgres connections and restart postmaster service.
> >>
> >> I have only one connection by web session. It is good or bad?
> >
> > One connection only? Then why did you increased the number of connections
> > to 800? Sorry, I might be missing some point here.
>
> Strip "only" to understand the sentence. ;-)
>
> Carlos has one open DB connection for each open "web" (i.e. Webbrowser)
> session, which means that there are way too many connections open for a
> great number of currently waiting sessions. A connection pool should
> alleviate the problems.
>
> Best Regards
> Michael Paesold
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Altaf Malik | 2006-11-28 09:46:27 | Re: Postgres Server collapse |
Previous Message | Michael Paesold | 2006-11-28 09:33:00 | Re: Postgres Server collapse |