Message-ID: <4498F48D.2070305@logix-tt.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:26:05 +0200
From: Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
Organization: Logical Tracking and Tracing International AG, Switzerland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fzied@planet.tn
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
References: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn>
In-Reply-To: <200606030931.k539V38Y007877@smtp2.planet.net.tn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi, Fzied,

fzied@planet.tn wrote:

> I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can
> get is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600 New
> con/sec.

Are you using connection pooling or persistent connections between
PostgreSQL and the Apaches?

Maybe it simply is the network latency between the two machines - as the
database is read-only, did you think about having both PostgreSQL and
Apache on both machines, and then load-balancing ingoing http requests
between them?

> I cannot scale beyond that value and the funny thing, is that none of
> the servers is swapping, or heavy loaded, neither postgres nor apache
> are refusing connexions.

And for measuring, are you really throwing parallel http connections to
the server? This sounds like you measure request latency, but the
maximum throughput might be much higher.

> my database is only 58M it's a read only DB and will lasts only for a
> month.

I guess it is a simple table with a single PK (some subscription numer)
- no joins or other things.

For this cases, a special non-RDBMS like MySQL, SQLite, or even some
hancrafted thingy may give you better results.


Markus


-- 
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf.     | Software Development GIS

Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org