Hi, Chris,
In your deployment, can you put a bit more detail if available? Many thanks!
My questions are:
a) How do you resolve the connection pool issue?
b) If each client application has many threads of connections to the remote server, what is the likely performance penalty with compare to the DBMS hosted at the same host as the client?
Indeed, the application requirements may be quite different for us, but above two are my main concerns prior to doing a porting work for a large application (from other vendor DBMS).
We have several idential applications on different servers, each has 250+ database connections, currently they are having a DBMS on each server but we want them to share one DBMS at a dedicate DBMS server (in the same LAN) if performance penalty is little. I wonder if anyone there can provide your comments and experience on this. Many thanks.
Regards,
Guoping
On 7/3/06, David Gagnon <dgagnon@siunik.com> wrote:
Can I hope having several hundred of db on 1 db server? Like 250 dbs =
250 client = 360 000 tables !!!
So is there a limit for the number of db in the db server ?(this spec is
not on the website)
What about the performance? Can I expect to have the same performance?
I am running a similar environment. Each of our customers has a seperate database with serveral hundred tables per database. One of our servers is running over 200 customer databases with absolutely no problems.
HTH,
chris
