Re: Big number of connections
От | Mike Sofen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Big number of connections |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 008b01d18e73$f1468950$d3d39bf0$@runbox.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Big number of connections (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Big number of connections
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
From: Jim Nasby Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 10:19 AM >>On 4/1/16 2:54 AM, jarek wrote: >> I'll be happy to hear form users of big PostgreSQL installations, how >> many users do you have and what kind of problems we may expect. >> Is there any risk, that huge number of roles will slowdown overall >> performance ? >Assuming you're on decent sized hardware though, 3000-4000 open connections shouldn't be much of an >issue *as long as veryfew are active at once*. If you get into a situation where there's a surge of activity >and you suddenly have 2x moreactive connections than cores, you won't be happy. I've seen that push >servers into a state where the only way to recoverwas to disconnect everyone. >-- >Jim Nasby Jim - I don't quite understand the math here: on a server with 20 cores, it can only support 40 active users? I come from the SQL Server world where a single 20 core server could support hundreds/thousands of active users and/or manydozens of background/foreground data processes. Is there something fundamentally different between the two platformsrelative to active user loads? How would we be able to use Postgres for larger web apps? Mike Sofen
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: