Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout

From: John Allgood <john(at)turbocorp(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruno Almeida do Lago <teolupus(at)gmail(dot)com>,"'Michael Adler'" <adler(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout
Date: 2005-02-23 19:15:52
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
I think maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. At most we will 
service 200-250 connections across all the 9 databases mentioned. The 
database we are building is for a trucking company. Each of the 
databases represents a different division. With one master database that 
everything is updated to. Most of the access to the database is by 
simple queries. Most of the IO intensive stuff is done when revenue 
reports are generated and when we have our month/year end processing. 
All the trucking loads that are mark as delivered are transferred to our 
master database during night time processing. All that will be handled 
using custom scripts. Maybe I have given a better explanation of the 
application. my biggest concern is how to partition the shared storage 
for maximum performance. Is there a real benifit to having more that one 
raid5 partition or am I wasting my time.


John Allgood - ESC

Tom Lane wrote:
>"Bruno Almeida do Lago" <teolupus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>Is there a real limit for max_connections? Here we've an Oracle server with
>>up to 1200 simultaneous conections over it!
>[ shrug... ] If your machine has the beef to run 1200 simultaneous
>queries, you can set max_connections to 1200.
>The point of what you were quoting is that if you want to service
>1200 concurrent users but you only expect maybe 100 simultaneously
>active queries from them (and you have a database box that can only
>service that many) then you want to put a connection pooler in
>front of 100 backends, not try to start a backend for every user.
>Oracle may handle this sort of thing differently, I dunno.
>			regards, tom lane
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2005-02-23 19:18:08
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-23 18:51:30
Subject: Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group