From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jose G(dot) Mendoza" <unixos(at)prodigy(dot)net(dot)mx> |
Cc: | <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 1000 users |
Date: | 2004-01-22 15:38:14 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0401220836300.24807-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Jose G. Mendoza wrote:
> I intend to use a PostgreSQL-Linux server (2GB RAM, 2.4GHz) with an
> application for a 1000 concurrent users (actually the group of
> programmers are developing this project). Do you think that is possible?
> Not only technically possible but practically possible (speed,
> stability, etc, etc).
> I want to read your opinion about this.
that really depends on what those 1,000 users are doing. Generally
speaking, if you can use connection pooling and an application / logic
layer between the users and the database you can handle more load.
that said, postgresql CAN handle 1,000 connections. 2 gig ram is a little
small, try to get at least 4 gigs to throw at the machine. But until you
benchmark it with a load similar to what you plan on doing with it in
production, who knows how fast (or more appropriately, slow) it will be.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jose G. Mendoza | 2004-01-22 16:11:49 | PostgreSQL 1000 users |
Previous Message | Ben Ramsey | 2004-01-22 15:04:30 | Re: Tables/Columns in upper-case? |