We are using a connection pooler. On average we see 2-5 connections per
database. But it sounds like we would need to either collect connections
more aggressively or lower the number of databases/server correct?
*Nathan Mascitelli*
Geotab Inc.
Software Developer | B. Eng Engineering Physics
[Direct] *+1 (289) 681-1005*
[Toll-Free] *+1 (877) 436-8221*
[Visit] www.geotab.com
Twitter <http://twitter.com/geotab> | Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/geotab> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/mygeotab=
>
| LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/102661?trk=3Dtyah&trkInfo=3DtarId:14031992=
50031,tas:geotab,idx:2-1-3>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:31 AM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote=
:
> On 4/20/2016 7:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Nathan Mascitelli<nathanmascitelli@geotab.com> writes:
>>
>>> >The machine has the postgres server and our application server on it.
>>> There
>>> >are =E2=80=8Baround 300 databases and typically ~1000 connections. At =
the time
>>> of
>>> >the crash there was free RAM and disk space on the server.
>>>
>> You're a braver man than I, to trust Windows with a 1000-connection
>> server. But anyway, if the backend count is that high it's far from
>> surprising that you hit some Windows resource limit or other. It's
>> widely considered best practice to use a connection pooler to limit
>> the number of backends to something a lot less than that, regardless
>> of platform.
>>
>
> with 300 databases in use, a pooler would not be much help. 1000
> connections is an average of 3 connections per database.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
>