Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code)
Date
Msg-id 15682.994804581@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code)  (ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers))
Responses Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code)
Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code)
Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code)
List pgsql-hackers
ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> All the OSes we know of fold it to 128, currently.  We can jump it 
> to 10240 now, or later when there are 20GHz CPUs.

> If you want to make it more complicated, it would be more useful to 
> be able to set the value lower for runtime environments where PG is 
> competing for OS resources with another daemon that deserves higher 
> priority.

Hmm, good point.  Does anyone have a feeling for the amount of kernel
resources that are actually sucked up by an accept-queue entry?  If 128
is the customary limit, is it actually worth worrying about whether
we are setting it to 128 vs. something smaller?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: varchar vs. text
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Time to read pg_hba.conf (Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Patch to make...)