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@xxxxxxxx> 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. >
