From: Gnanakumar <gnanam@zoniac.com>
To: 'Kevin Grittner' <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Advice/guideline on increasing shared_buffers and kernel parameters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 16:11:10 +0530
Message-ID: <001f01cd2dd0$4187f8d0$c497ea70$@com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FA8E99B0200002500047A16@gw.wicourts.gov>
References: <00da01cd2ce7$35d17780$a1746680$@com>
<00e101cd2cfc$b6140b00$223c2100$@com>
<4FA8E99B0200002500047A16@gw.wicourts.gov>
> We get very good performance dealing with
> thousands of concurrent users with a pool of 35 connections to the
> database.
>
> If you want to handle more users than you can currently support, you
> probably need to use fewer database connections.
First, please excuse me that I'm not able to understand this particular
point clearly. How can be reducing/using fewer connections in connection
pooler can support larger concurrent incoming connection requests? If this
is so critical to revisit (reducing), then I may have to convince/justify my
peers also, before making this change in the Production server. Can you
throw some light on this subject?
Thanks for bringing this idea to notice.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: gnanam@zoniac.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: Advice/guideline on increasing shared_buffers and kernel parameters
In-Reply-To: <001f01cd2dd0$4187f8d0$c497ea70$@com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox