Re: Scaling postgres
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Scaling postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20020413181052.5a229f43.nconway@klamath.dyndns.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Scaling postgres (Steve Lane <slane@fmpro.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Scaling postgres
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:00:19 -0500 "Steve Lane" <slane@fmpro.com> wrote: > On the front end, as I understand it (I know this is not really > Postgres-specific), with Apache and mod_php I need one process per > concurrent user. Anyone care to speculate how many concurrent users I could > get on a single box? I really don't know what's reasonable to expect. For the front-end, it totally depends on the hardware you're using, the OS you're running this on, and the design/performance requirements of your application. For example, a good caching layer could easily improve performance by 100% or more. > On the back end, is there any direct relationship between the number of open > client connections and the number of processes used? Yes, there is 1 postgres process per database connection. Whether you create 1 database connection per client would depend on how you design your application. > My question again would be, is it at all reasonable to think that > the postgres back end, running on a single box, could handle 800-1200 > concurrent users? Not really sure. By "concurrent users", do you mean "executing queries at any given time", or "logged in" (so that perhaps 10% of those will actually be hitting the DB)? > Is it a matter of running multiple postmasters? If you mean running multiple postmasters on a single machine, that is unlikely to help. > If I can't get all those users on one back-end box, how do I distribute them > across multiple servers but have them all access the same data store? There might be support for replication in 7.3; until then, there are some projects like erServer you can take a look at. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: