Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
our server alternatives; at present only PostgreSQL is left, was the most reliable of all. mind i ask on which platform (Operating system) did you do your test,i'm mostly used to linux but after i paid my computer (still 5 month remaining),i want to get a used SGI box from reputable system and put NetBSD as well as PostgreSQL on it (and maybe AolServer too,depending on the threading model of NetBSD). Alain Toussaint
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [NOVICE] Re: re : PHP and persistent connections
"I have all sorts of client apps, connecting in different ways, to my server. Some of the clients are leaving their connections open, but unused. How can I prevent running out of backends, and boot the inactive users off?" how about having a middle man between apache (or aolserver or any other clients...) and PosgreSQL ?? that middleman could be configured to have 16 persistant connections,every clients would deal with the middleman instead of going direct to the database,this would be an advantage where multiple PostgreSQL server are used... 240 apache process are running on a box and there's 60 PostgreSQL instance running on the machine or another machine: 240 apache process -- middleman -- 60 PostgreSQL process now if there's multiple Database server: 240 apache process -- middleman -- 12 PostgreSQL for each server (5 servers in this case) in this case,the middleman could be a shared library which the clients link to.. what do you think about that ?? Alain Toussaint
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [NOVICE] Re: re : PHP and persistent connections
Well, this is sort of what AOLserver does for you without any need for middlemen. i agree that AolServer is good karma,i've been reading various docs on Aolserver since Philip Greenspun talked about it on linuxworld and i'm glad that there's some java support being coded for it (im my opinion,it's the only advantage that Apache had over AolServer for me). Again, reading stuff like this makes me think "ugh!" This stuff is really pretty easy, it's amazing to me that the Apache/db world talks about such kludges when they're clearly not necessary. well...i was using Apache as an example due to it DB model but the stuff i was talking would work quite well in the case of multiple DB server hosting differents table and you want to maintain location independance,here's an example: you have 7 Database server,5 are online and the other 2 are for maintenance and/or development purpose,for simplicity,we'll name the server database1.example.net to database7.example.net,database4.example.net is currently doing a dump and database6.example.net is loading the dump from database4,then,you reconfigure the middleman so it redirect all request from database4 to database6: vim /etc/middleman.conf and then a sighup to the middleman so it reread its config file: killall -HUP middleman this would update the middleman's shared lib with the new configuration info (and BTW,i just extended my idea from a single shared lib to a daemon/shared lib combo). now i'm off to get the dog out for a walk and then,take a nap,see ya !! Alain Toussaint
