Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-28 Thread denis
I picked 260 because 256 are the max clients in the apache configuration file. My problem is that every apache request need to make a connection to the database, so if I have all the 256 apache processes working, I need at least 256 pg_pool processes. However, with the pg_pgpool installed in

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-28 Thread denis
With the last test I made, the database is swapping but in a very slow way... 100K every 10 minutes and that seems to not be a problem... in the sense that the server doesn't slow down... Today I'll make other tests and let you know. Thank you, Denis Scott Marlowe wrote: On Wed,

[GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread denis
We have a postgresql server configured with max_connections=4096. We have such a high number of max_connections because there are 8 web servers connected to the database and all use persistent connections. Each web server can have 256 max clients and 2 connection strings, so the max connections

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread Richard Huxton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a postgresql server configured with max_connections=4096. We have such a high number of max_connections because there are 8 web servers connected to the database and all use persistent connections. Each web server can have 256 max clients and 2 connection

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread denis
Richard Huxton wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a postgresql server configured with max_connections=4096. We have such a high number of max_connections because there are 8 web servers connected to the database and all use persistent connections. Each web server can have 256 max

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread Roman Neuhauser
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-07-27 10:22:48 +0200: Richard Huxton wrote: Sounds like a BEGIN being re-issued alright. Solution - fix your application(s) and don't use persistent connections (or if you do, make sure you rollback any pre-existing transactions and issue any relevant SET

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread Jeff Trout
On Jul 27, 2005, at 4:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Already checked. We set a machine with only pg_pool installed as a fronted to the real db. If I disable persistent connections and I use pg_pool with 4096 preforked clients, no no no. you don't want 4096 preforked clients. What you

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread denis
I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with 260 pg_pool preforked clients in each machine. The database seems to work better. At least when it goes to swap it doesn't stop working... I also reduced the shared buffers and moved the pg_xlog folder to another disk on

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread Jeff Trout
On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with 260 pg_pool preforked clients in each machine. Why did you pick 260? You don't need a 1:1 ratio. That is the point of the pool. Those connections are shared.

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:46:56PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with 260 pg_pool preforked clients in each machine. The database seems to work better. At least when it goes to swap it doesn't stop working... Wait, are you

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql with max_connections=4096

2005-07-27 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:53, Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:46:56PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm now testing with pg_pool installed on each apache frontend with 260 pg_pool preforked clients in each machine. The database seems to work better. At least when it goes