Thanks for responding Alexander. I had been thinking that the additional threads would (which would have need the increase in pool size) would give my users improved page rendering speed as more of them woud be able to connect at one time. It stemmed from increasing my thread size from 4 to 6 and perceiving that pages were quicker to load. Decreasing the threads from 4 to 2 seemed to increase the page size.
However, having increased the threads and pool size (by editing the zone.conf files I have in my 2 instances) I began to wonder whether what I had done had any effect at all. In fact, at the same time I had increased the objects cache size from the 5000 default to 40000 and I felt that this was having the positive effect so I went back to the default pool size and back down to 6 threads. In fact by looking at the cache parameters tab in ZMI I can see that each of these threads creates it's own cache so the effects of my work would probably take longer to reap any kind of benefit as the caches would take longer to 'warm up'. Having said that I can at least see that more object are being served from my cache than previous. In view of what you've said, I'm thinking that my next step should be to go back to the default 4 threads but initiate a third zope instance on my OSX server and let that handle the processes. I'm in the fortunate position of having a lot of RAM (around 9GB still available) so I'm obviously looking to use this as much as possible although I'm still getting to grips with achieving a well balanced caching strategy using CacheFu but I'll hopefully get there! Alexander Limi wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Finlay Boo > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (I want to up it to 15 and then up my threads to 10) > > Sorry for not answering your original question, but… why? > > What does 10 threads give you? Generally, if you're looking to set up a > lot of concurrent requests, the recommendation is to have a thread of 1, > and set up 10 instances instead. The OS (at least if you're on Linux/BSD) > is much better at handling processes than Python is at handling threads. > So if you're willing to live with a load balancer (haproxy or pound), this > is generally regarded as a better setup. It's what we do on plone.org. > > Of course, you might have some special use case that I don't know about, > but increasing the number of threads isn't going to do as much good. :) > > Oh, and a cache large enough to keep the catalog (or the whole ZODB if you > can) in memory will help a lot. > > -- > Alexander Limi · http://limi.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Setup mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/setup > > -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Amending-pool-size-tp2137409p2167281.html Sent from the Installation, Setup, Upgrades mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Setup mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/setup
