Re: Monitoring number of backends

On 10/23/2013 04:28 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>     My page response time is sub-second, and I run quite a few queries to build the page.  But also, my server isn't
tobusy at the moment.  The load is around 0.3 to 0.5 when its busy. 
>
>
> Wasn't your question to figure out how to make sure things continue to run fine when the demand increases to a higher
levelthan it currently is? If you cite its current OK performance to reject the advice, I'm not really sure what we are
goingto accomplish. 
>

Correct, my current load and response time are fine, but I'll be getting more load soon.  I didn't reject the advice.
Iinstalled pgbouncer on my test box, played with it, then installed it on the live box and let it run live for a while,
untilI ran into problems, then shut it off. 

>
>       Although there are a few new players.  Assuming Apache, pgbouncer and postgres are all on the same box, and I'm
usingunix sockets as much as possible, it probably doesn't matter if I use non-persistent connections from php. 
>
>     But if I need to move the db to its own box... then should I move pgbouncer there too?
>
>
> That depends on where the bottleneck is.
>

That's my big problem.  I don't have a bottleneck now, and I'm trying to guess (without experience) where the
bottleneckwill be.  Judging by everyone's response, pg_connect will be a bottleneck that I'll have to try and find a
solutionfor. 

Google did turn up some links about why you might put pgbouncer on web box vs. db box.  Thats all well and good, except
I'mnot sure I can even use pgbouncer as my magic pill.  It doesn't work so well with lots of databases.  And I have
lotsof code and batch processes in place so its not gonna be simple to use a single db with lots of schemas. 

I'm still undecided on what to do, or if I should even do anything at all.  I am grateful for all the advice though.

-Andy