Thread: supporting 2000 simultaneous connections.
Hi,
I am working on a web application where the front end is struts framework and back end is PgSQL 7.4.
The client want us to support 2000 simultaneous users. My question is will there be any performance degradation if I increase the max_connections of pgsql to 2000.
Is there a limit to maximum number of simultaneous user supoorted by pgsql.
thanks for your time and help.
regards
Shiva
Heres a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers
I am working on a web application where the front end is struts framework and back end is PgSQL 7.4.
The client want us to support 2000 simultaneous users. My question is will there be any performance degradation if I increase the max_connections of pgsql to 2000.
Is there a limit to maximum number of simultaneous user supoorted by pgsql.
thanks for your time and help.
regards
Shiva
Heres a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers
On 28.02.2007 07:15, Shiva Sarna wrote: > The client want us to support 2000 simultaneous users. My question is will there be any performance degradation if I increasethe max_connections of pgsql to 2000. Consider using a connection pool.. -- Regards, Hannes Dorbath
In response to Shiva Sarna <shiva.sarna@yahoo.com>: > Hi, > > I am working on a web application where the front end is struts framework > and back end is PgSQL 7.4. > > The client want us to support 2000 simultaneous users. My question is will > there be any performance degradation if I increase the max_connections of > pgsql to 2000. > > Is there a limit to maximum number of simultaneous user supoorted by pgsql. > > thanks for your time and help. You can support as many simultaneous users as your hardware can allow. Each connection requires a certain amount of RAM and CPU to maintain. As long as you have enough memory and CPU power, you'll be able to support that many connections. Performance _will_ degrade if all of those connections are busy at once, but that's going to happen with any shared system. The disk can only read from one area at a time, and other system resources will be contended for as well. You might want to take some time to investigate what "simultaneous users" really means for your application. For example, in a web application, 2000 simultaneous users usually equates to less than 100 actual database connections, as web users spend most of their time reading pages and very little time actually talking to the database. You might also gain efficiencies by using something such as pgpool, but that depends on the nature of your application. In any event, I'm not aware of anything that would prevent you from having 2000 simultaneous connections, as long as you had beefy enough hardware to handle it. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.
Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> On 28.02.2007 07:15, Shiva Sarna wrote:
>> The client want us to support 2000 simultaneous users. My question is
>> will there be any performance degradation if I increase the
>> max_connections of pgsql to 2000.
>
> Consider using a connection pool..
But to answer the question, it entirely depends on your hardware. I
wouldn't try this with less than 16Gig of ram and 4-8 cores.
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Shiva Sarna <shiva.sarna@yahoo.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am working on a web application where the front end is struts framework
>> and back end is PgSQL 7.4.
*cough*, you are going to greatly decrease your ability to scale if you
are running anything less than 8.1.
>
> Performance _will_ degrade if all of those connections are busy at once, but
> that's going to happen with any shared system. The disk can only read from
> one area at a time, and other system resources will be contended for as well.
7.4 doesn't scale to what he wants, even on big hardware.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
In response to "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: > Bill Moran wrote: > > In response to Shiva Sarna <shiva.sarna@yahoo.com>: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am working on a web application where the front end is struts framework > >> and back end is PgSQL 7.4. > > *cough*, you are going to greatly decrease your ability to scale if you > are running anything less than 8.1. > > > > Performance _will_ degrade if all of those connections are busy at once, but > > that's going to happen with any shared system. The disk can only read from > > one area at a time, and other system resources will be contended for as well. > > 7.4 doesn't scale to what he wants, even on big hardware. Oops ... didn't notice that. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.
Shiva Sarna escribió:
Hi,You can test it. Use JMeter (http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/) and stress it to know where the limit is (according to your hardware, of course).
I am working on a web application where the front end is struts framework and back end is PgSQL 7.4.
The client want us to support 2000 simultaneous users. My question is will there be any performance degradation if I increase the max_connections of pgsql to 2000.
Is there a limit to maximum number of simultaneous user supoorted by pgsql.
thanks for your time and help.
regards
Shiva
Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 18:09, Mariano Mara wrote: > Shiva Sarna escribió: > > Hi, > > > > I am working on a web application where the front end is struts > > framework and back end is PgSQL 7.4. > > > > The client want us to support 2000 simultaneous users. My question > > is will there be any performance degradation if I increase the > > max_connections of pgsql to 2000. > > > > Is there a limit to maximum number of simultaneous user supoorted by > > pgsql. > > > > thanks for your time and help. > You can test it. Use JMeter (http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/) and > stress it to know where the limit is (according to your hardware, of > course). I have to toss my hat in on jmeter as well. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done, and has a lot of programmability in it.
Hi, Thanks for your reply and help. The web application I am talking about is a Learning Management System. By simultaneous users I mean that all 2000 users should be able to access the application and for example say take a test. We are using JNDI connection pooling. I think we have to now think about upgrading the hardware as well. thanks for your time. regards Shiva --- Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> wrote: > In response to "Joshua D. Drake" > <jd@commandprompt.com>: > > > Bill Moran wrote: > > > In response to Shiva Sarna > <shiva.sarna@yahoo.com>: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I am working on a web application where the > front end is struts framework > > >> and back end is PgSQL 7.4. > > > > *cough*, you are going to greatly decrease your > ability to scale if you > > are running anything less than 8.1. > > > > > > Performance _will_ degrade if all of those > connections are busy at once, but > > > that's going to happen with any shared system. > The disk can only read from > > > one area at a time, and other system resources > will be contended for as well. > > > > 7.4 doesn't scale to what he wants, even on big > hardware. > > Oops ... didn't notice that. > > -- > Bill Moran > Collaborative Fusion Inc. > __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
>-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Shiva Sarna >Sent: vrijdag 2 maart 2007 6:03 >To: Bill Moran; Joshua D. Drake >Cc: Shiva Sarna; pgsql-general@postgresql.org >Subject: Re: [GENERAL] supporting 2000 simultaneous connections. > >Hi, > >Thanks for your reply and help. > >The web application I am talking about is a Learning >Management System. > >By simultaneous users I mean that all 2000 users should be >able to access the application and for example say take a test. As Bill Moran already said: "You might want to take some time to investigate what "simultaneous users" really means for your application. For example, in a web application, 2000 simultaneous users usually equates to less than 100 actual database connections, as web users spend most of their time reading pages and very little time actually talking to the database." This should also be true for your application too, especially since it's a web application. You don't need a persistent connection per user, but can rather share then between different users. When taking tests I'm not that fast and reading, thinking and clicking will take some seconds. Your system is well capable of storing my answers quickly enough (and probably getting the question as well). >We are using JNDI connection pooling. > >I think we have to now think about upgrading the hardware as well. Test this first with you existing setup. Remember, 2000 web clients is not the same as 2000 database connections! Your question was if most likely interpreted whether postgres can sustain 2000 connections to the database at once, rather than whether it can handle 2000 web users. - Joris >thanks for your time. > >regards > >Shiva > > >--- Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> wrote: > >> In response to "Joshua D. Drake" >> <jd@commandprompt.com>: >> >> > Bill Moran wrote: >> > > In response to Shiva Sarna >> <shiva.sarna@yahoo.com>: >> > > >> > >> Hi, >> > >> >> > >> I am working on a web application where the >> front end is struts framework >> > >> and back end is PgSQL 7.4. >> > >> > *cough*, you are going to greatly decrease your >> ability to scale if you >> > are running anything less than 8.1. >> > > >> > > Performance _will_ degrade if all of those >> connections are busy at once, but >> > > that's going to happen with any shared system. >> The disk can only read from >> > > one area at a time, and other system resources >> will be contended for as well. >> > >> > 7.4 doesn't scale to what he wants, even on big >> hardware. >> >> Oops ... didn't notice that. >> >> -- >> Bill Moran >> Collaborative Fusion Inc.