Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Shaun Thomas
Subject Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0211111203180.1697-100000@hamster.inn.lee.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine?  ("Henrik Steffen" <steffen@city-map.de>)
Responses Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine?  ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Henrik Steffen wrote:

> > - How many clients simultaneously connecting to it?
> one webserver with max. 50 instances, approximately 10.000 users a day,
> about 150.000 Pageviews daily. All pages are created on the fly using
> mod_perl connecting to the db-server.

Aha.  What kind of web-side data caching are you doing?  That alone can
drop your load down to < 1.  Even something like a 1-hour cache, or
something you can manually expire can work amazing wonders for database
usage.  So far, the only thing we've found that doesn't really fit this
model are full text searches.

Here, the biggest difference to our DB server was caused by *not* having
all of our 9 webservers doing 50+ connections per second, which we
achieved mainly through caching.  Adding another CPU will work as well,
but as far as a long-term, not just throwing hardware at the problem
kind of solution goes, see if you can get caching worked in there
somehow.

Since you know you're using Pg.pm (switch to DBI::pg, trust me on this
one), you should have little problem either caching your result set or
even the whole resulting page with select non-cachable parts.  Not only
will that reduce page-load time, but the strain on your database as
well.

--
Shaun M. Thomas                INN Database Administrator
Phone: (309) 743-0812          Fax  : (309) 743-0830
Email: sthomas@townnews.com    Web  : www.townnews.com


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Win2K Questions
Next
From: "scott.marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine?