Re: Hardware for PostgreSQL

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Ketema <ketema(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Hardware for PostgreSQL
Date: 2007-11-08 17:14:35
Message-ID: 200711081214.35899.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wednesday 31 October 2007 12:45, Ketema wrote:
> I am trying to build a very Robust DB server that will support 1000+
> concurrent users (all ready have seen max of 237 no pooling being
> used). I have read so many articles now that I am just saturated. I
> have a general idea but would like feedback from others.
>

Most of the other answers you've gotten have been pretty good, but I had some
questions on the above; specifically is there a reason you're avoid pooling?
(something like pgbouncer can work wonders). Are your 1000+ concurrent users
working in something like a web environment, where they won't need a 1:1
user:connection map to service them all, or are these going to be more
permanent connections into the system? FWIW I'd done 1000 connections
simultaneous on pretty basic hardware, but you need to have the right kind of
workloads to be able to do it.

>
> Who has built the biggest baddest Pg server out there and what do you
> use?
>

While I'm not sure this will be that much help, I'd feel remisce if I didn't
point you to it...
http://www.lethargy.org/~jesus/archives/66-Big-Bad-PostgreSQL.html

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-11-08 17:22:28 Re: Estimation problem with a LIKE clause containing a /
Previous Message Vivek Khera 2007-11-08 16:43:04 Re: dell versus hp