Re: Connection Pooling....an interesting question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)

Well, that essentially means that I have to deploy one more server
with MTS on it....isn't there anyway that I can do this thing on the
Linux server? If I have to deploy one more machine...I would like that
to be a Linux one ;-))

We are planning to shift our inhouse apps to Linux & Java (GUI using
SWING), so I would like to byepass MS, if thats at all possible
somehow. I understand, I would be able to pool my connections
serverside using Java, but presently I am stuck with ODBC.

In any case, if somebody can guide me how to calculate the connection
load & query load, I shall be very thankful.

With best regards.
Sanjay.

PS: I agree that the XML idea is a terrific one and I shall definitely
wait till someone develops it....just wish I had the capability to do
it myself....anyways....someday ;-))


On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:36:06 -0500, in
tci.lists.rdbms.postgresql.interfaces you wrote:

>I'm not saying anything about postgres not being able to handle that many
>connections.  I'm just saying it shouldn't if it doesn't have to.
>
>Adam Lang
>Systems Engineer
>Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
>http://www.rutgersinsurance.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg@sai.msu.su>
>To: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>
>Cc: <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
>Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 12:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connection Pooling....an interesting question!!
>(was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)
>
>
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Adam Lang wrote:
>>
>> > Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:07:16 -0500
>> > From: Adam Lang <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>
>> > To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
>> > Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connection Pooling....an interesting
>question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)
>> >
>> > As (I believe) Joel mentioned, you should use a distributed
>architecture.
>> > Clients shouldn't directly access your db server.  I believe it is
>> > "acceptable" if you are only looking at a small app that 10 people are
>going
>> > to use, but 200 hundred clients is a lot.
>> >
>> > You should have postgres on one tier, your clients on one, and devise a
>> > middle tier that acts as a relay between your clients and postgres.
>That
>> > way the 200 connections are not handled by postgres.  Postgres will only
>> > need to handle the 10 or so you pool with the middle tier.
>>
>> Brrr, we have 128 persistent connections without any problem.
>> Just use -N option. I dont' remember maximum number of backends compiled
>> on default, but you could always change this number.
>> But you're right whe you speaking about 3-tire model. We're experimenting
>> with Corba and preliminary results are promising
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oleg
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
>> Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
>> Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
>> phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
>
>