With the last test I made, the database is swapping but in a very slow
way... 100K every 10 minutes and that seems to not be a problem... in
the sense that the server doesn't slow down...
Today I'll make other tests and let you know.
Thank you,
Denis
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27
I picked 260 because 256 are the max clients in the apache configuration
file.
My problem is that every apache request need to make a connection to the
database, so if I have all the 256 apache processes working, I need at
least 256 pg_pool processes.
However, with the pg_pgpool installed in e
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:53, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:46:56PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with 260
> > pg_pool preforked clients in each machine.
> >
> > The database seems to work better. At least when
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:46:56PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with 260
> pg_pool preforked clients in each machine.
>
> The database seems to work better. At least when it goes to swap it
> doesn't stop working...
Wait, are y
On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with
260 pg_pool preforked clients in each machine.
Why did you pick 260?
You don't need a 1:1 ratio. That is the point of the pool. Those
connections are "shared". Chanc
I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with 260
pg_pool preforked clients in each machine.
The database seems to work better. At least when it goes to swap it
doesn't stop working...
I also reduced the shared buffers and moved the pg_xlog folder to
another disk on ano
On Jul 27, 2005, at 4:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already checked.
We set a machine with only pg_pool installed as a fronted to the
real db.
If I disable persistent connections and I use pg_pool with 4096
preforked clients,
no no no.
you don't want 4096 preforked clients.
What you wa
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-07-27 10:22:48 +0200:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
> >Sounds like a BEGIN being re-issued alright. Solution - fix your
> >application(s) and don't use persistent connections (or if you do,
> >make sure you rollback any pre-existing transactions and issue any
> >relevant SET
Richard Huxton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a postgresql server configured with max_connections=4096.
We have such a high number of max_connections because there are 8 web
servers connected to the database and all use persistent connections.
Each web server can have 256 max clients
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a postgresql server configured with max_connections=4096.
We have such a high number of max_connections because there are 8 web
servers connected to the database and all use persistent connections.
Each web server can have 256 max clients and 2 connection strings
We have a postgresql server configured with max_connections=4096.
We have such a high number of max_connections because there are 8 web
servers connected to the database and all use persistent connections.
Each web server can have 256 max clients and 2 connection strings, so
the max connections
11 matches
Mail list logo
