Re: Connection Pooling....an interesting question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)

<div><p>Adam,<p>Great point. This resounds with a much louder truth when you consider that the reality of expansion is
thatit usually ends up being 10x bigger than the wildest dreams of the person who is doing the original development. If
youthink this way, your apps, and database server, will have use well into the future, instead of being re-architected
andredesigned later (with you being cursed for designing it poorly). <p>Of course, you are limited by your budget. Even
ifyou need to use P90 handmedowns (for the extra boxes your boss won't buy) right now to architect it right, when
expansiontime comes, your app, and budget will be ready to grow the system. Do it right the first time and leave a
mark!<p>I didn't post this to the list because it is sort of off the thread and I don't believe that Oleg wants to hear
thathe is doing things the dangerous way.<p>thx,<p>Neil<br /><br /></div><div></div><div></div>>From: "Adam Lang"
<div></div>>CC: <div></div>>Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connection Pooling....an interesting question!!
(was..ConnectionPooling...(Repost)...please do help...) <div></div>>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:36:06 -0500
<div></div>><div></div>>I'm not saying anything about postgres not being able to handle that many
<div></div>>connections.I'm just saying it shouldn't if it doesn't have to. <div></div>> <div></div>>Adam Lang
<div></div>>SystemsEngineer <div></div>>Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
<div></div>>http://www.rutgersinsurance.com<div></div>>----- Original Message ----- <div></div>>From: "Oleg
Bartunov" <div></div>>To: "Adam Lang"  <div></div>>Cc:  <div></div>>Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 12:28 PM
<div></div>>Subject:Re: [INTERFACES] Connection Pooling....an interesting question!! <div></div>>(was..Connection
Pooling...(Repost)...pleasedo help...) <div></div>> <div></div>> <div></div>> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Adam
Langwrote: <div></div>> > <div></div>> > > Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:07:16 -0500 <div></div>> >
>From: Adam Lang  <div></div>> > > To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org <div></div>> > > Subject:
Re:[INTERFACES] Connection Pooling....an interesting <div></div>>question!! (was..Connection
Pooling...(Repost)...pleasedo help...) <div></div>> > > <div></div>> > > As (I believe) Joel
mentioned,you should use a distributed <div></div>>architecture. <div></div>> > > Clients shouldn't
directlyaccess your db server. I believe it is <div></div>> > > "acceptable" if you are only looking at a
smallapp that 10 people are <div></div>>going <div></div>> > > to use, but 200 hundred clients is a lot.
<div></div>>> > <div></div>> > > You should have postgres on one tier, your clients on one, and
devisea <div></div>> > > middle tier that acts as a relay between your clients and postgres.
<div></div>>That<div></div>> > > way the 200 connections are not handled by postgres. Postgres will only
<div></div>>> > need to handle the 10 or so you pool with the middle tier. <div></div>> >
<div></div>>> Brrr, we have 128 persistent connections without any problem. <div></div>> > Just use -N
option.I dont' remember maximum number of backends compiled <div></div>> > on default, but you could always
changethis number. <div></div>> > But you're right whe you speaking about 3-tire model. We're experimenting
<div></div>>> with Corba and preliminary results are promising <div></div>> > <div></div>> >
<div></div>>> Regards, <div></div>> > Oleg <div></div>> > <div></div>> >
_____________________________________________________________<div></div>> > Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher,
hostmasterof AstroNet, <div></div>> > Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
<div></div>>> Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ <div></div>> > phone:
+007(095)939-16-83,+007(095)939-23-83 <div></div>> <div></div><br clear="all" /><hr />Get your FREE download of MSN
Explorerat <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br />