Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:14:35 -0500
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware for PostgreSQL
In-reply-to: <1193849108.591961.103570@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Ketema <ketema@gmail.com>
Message-id: <200711081214.35899.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
References: <1193849108.591961.103570@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1

On Wednesday 31 October 2007 12:45, Ketema wrote:
> I am trying to build a very Robust DB server that will support 1000+
> concurrent users (all ready have seen max of 237 no pooling being
> used).  I have read so many articles now that I am just saturated.  I
> have a general idea but would like feedback from others.
>

Most of the other answers you've gotten have been pretty good, but I had some 
questions on the above; specifically is there a reason you're avoid pooling? 
(something like pgbouncer can work wonders).  Are your 1000+ concurrent users 
working in something like a web environment, where they won't need a 1:1 
user:connection map to service them all, or are these going to be more 
permanent connections into the system?  FWIW I'd done 1000 connections 
simultaneous on pretty basic hardware, but you need to have the right kind of 
workloads to be able to do it. 

>
> Who has built the biggest baddest Pg server out there and what do you
> use?
>

While I'm not sure this will be that much help, I'd feel remisce if I didn't 
point you to it... 
http://www.lethargy.org/~jesus/archives/66-Big-Bad-PostgreSQL.html

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL