| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Hans-Juergen Schoenig" <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2008-08-19 17:24:07 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920808191024leef42b5hc27c2ab98d87d331@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> But I'm amazed by this, too:
>
> # max_connections = 700 # web application database
>
> How many CPUs and spindles are you assuming there?
>
> My testing and experience suggest applications should use no more than
> 4 per CPU plus 2 per spindle, absolute maximum. Don't you find that a
> connection pool with queuing capability is required for best
> performance with a large number of users?
Agreed, with this many concurrent users, I would expect severe lock
contention on the ProcArrayLock. Similarly, if this were heavily
updated, WAL-related locks would likely become another significant
bottleneck.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Drake | 2008-08-19 17:30:03 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-19 17:22:34 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |