| From: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sanjeetkamble <sanjeetkamble(at)rediffmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setting up a database for 10000 concurrent users |
| Date: | 2015-05-04 14:33:06 |
| Message-ID: | 55478322.50902@squeakycode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> On 05/04/2015 02:02 AM, sanjeetkamble wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Please let me know how The database server is started with max_connections =
> 10000 ???
>
> I have same issue, but i have a SAN storage where Postgresql is installed.
>
>
> Sanjeet
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net <mailto:andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>> wrote:
>
> No doubt that would be a problem. Its bad idea. set max_connections to core count * 2, then put pg_pool in front, and set pg_pools max count to 10000.
>
> -Andy
>
>
On 05/04/2015 09:22 AM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> I suggest pg_bouncer as opposed to pg_pool. My testing showed it handled connections better. Ultimately the choice is yours, but with 10000 connections, you absolutely need a connection manger.
>
Oops. I meant pg_bouncer too. (I haven't had caffeine yet).
-Andy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thelonius Buddha | 2015-05-04 15:57:28 | tsearch survey |
| Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2015-05-04 14:22:37 | Re: Setting up a database for 10000 concurrent users |