On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 11:57, Greg Stark wrote: > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Cutting that count down to 10 idlers in total by having PostgreSQL > > prefork a specific database would make a significant difference. > > Well it would be 10 for each database. Since as has been pointed out before > loading the database is most of the delay. > > If that's enough why not just run 10 apache processes instead of 100?
Because then we would need 10 times as many servers ;) > I'm assuming the static non-database driven content is already separated onto > other servers. In which case running 100 apache processes, most of which are > idle is the source of the problem. Most of it has been. It's the duty cycle. As stated in another email, only about 20% of the work a script does is database related -- which occurs all at one time. Even when all Apache backends are active, a large number of connections will be idle but were used or will be used at some point during the generation of that page. It really is an Apache fault -- but I don't think it can be fixed within Apache itself. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
