David Nicol wrote: > On 4/17/06, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:14 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote: >> >>> I'd suggest trying pgpool without Apache::DBI also. Using both you're >>> essentially pooling twice for no real reason. >> >>Not really. Apache::DBI just provides persistent connections. This >>pgpool thing is trying to actually share a limited number of connections >>between a larger set of client processes. Using it with Apache::DBI or >>DBI->connect_cached() makes sense. >> >>- Perrin > > > Maybe someone could write Apache::DBI::pooled which would > maintain a smaller number of persistent connections and provide > them to the client processes as needed intstead of maintaining > a persistent connection for each client process. The approach would > make sense when there is a limit on the number of available slots > at the server and that limit is lower than the number of processes. > The data load will be exactly the same, although it might be smoother > as a client could block until there is an available connection during > periods of high load instead of making more simultaneous requests on the > server. > > -- > David L Nicol > Can you remember when vending machines took pennies? > >
The better approach seems to me using mod_dbd which has the draw back that it is only available on apache-2.2 at least for mysql it looks like it's not rocket science to get it working. Tom
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
