My primary setup that I use this in is an back-end for an application
that uses XML over HTTP to talk to a PHP application using PgSQL. It's
run in production for a long time, on modest hardware (dual xeon, 4 gigs
ram, raid 5 ultra 160 drives - pgsql that is).
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 00:20 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@ehpg.net> writes:
>
> > I use it on a few very high traffic sites without issue, but it is tuned so
> > that there is only 1 persistant connection per apache backend and postgresql
> > will allow the max apache backends, which by default is generally 256. I
> > highly recommend it in such a situation, while I generally do not recommend
> > it in any other.
>
> That doesn't sound reasonable. Does your machine really have so many
> processors or i/o bandwidth that 256 postgres processes can really all make
> progress?
>
> Or do you have images and static html on the same web server? If so I suggest
> moving them to another web server. No need to have a postgres instance (and a
> php instance) sitting idle consuming memory waiting until someone happens to
> hit a dynamic page.
>
