| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: heavy swapping, not sure why |
| Date: | 2011-08-31 02:44:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=0eNpJUComaF054eya0untC5xrOCsrzzWRcSaiWhmS8uA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM, mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 1000 max connections ? I thought that was several times more than
> recommended these days, even for 24 or 48 core machines. Or am I living in
> the past ? (I admit that my most recent runs of pgbench showed that best
> throughput at around 250 backends from a 2 cpu VM which kind of surprised me
> for a synthetic load and all that)
>
It's definitely sub optimal, but we haven't had the time to test
pgbouncer or pgpool in staging. luckily about 95% of those
connections are idle at any given time, and no queries do anything
that causes a thundering herd issue.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-08-31 03:05:30 | Re: heavy swapping, not sure why |
| Previous Message | mark | 2011-08-31 02:36:10 | Re: heavy swapping, not sure why |