[pgpool-general: 3881] Re: pgpool configuration
ioanasoftware at yahoo.ca
Tue Jul 21 05:12:45 JST 2015
I think I found the problem but I don't know how to fix it.
I have a client that makes a lot of short living connections to the server. When the client closes the connection, the port on the client side will stay in TIME_WAIT state for 4 minutes until it can be reused. So the application runs all right until it reaches the available ports (> 28.000 all in
TIME_WAIT state) and then it starts returning errors.
I found some articles suggesting to change the kernel parameters:
net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1024 65000
net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle = 1
net.ipv4.tcp_fin_timeout = 10
I would like to ask if this is the right way to work with pgpool and I should look into adjusting these parameters or I am missing something?
Is anyone else using only pgpool for connection pooling for clients generating a lot of connections or they are using other connection pooling (like tomcat jdbc connection pool) on top of pgpool.
On Thursday, July 9, 2015 4:26 AM, Yugo Nagata <nagata at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
pgpool-II generates 200 processes and connections to PostgreSQL,
and 200 clients can connect to pgpool-II simultaneously, since num_init_children=200. Other clients are to wait for connection
in the listen queue of OS.
The length of listen queue can be controlled by listen_backlog_multiplier
parameter. The default is 2, so the queue length is 400 (= 200 * 2).
(In acutual, the length is decided by OS kernel.)
If the queue is overflowing, OS retries connection several times
(tcp_syn_retries) before it fails. This causes performance degression
or connection error. So, specifying listen_backlog_multiplier to
larger value might be resolve your situation.
You can check if the overflow occurs by `netstat -s`. If so,
a message like the following is in TcpExt part.
535 times the listen queue of a socket overflowed
I don't know why only 60 connection are used with Tomcat JDBC
connection pool. However, I think this can be affected by Tomcat configuration like maxThreads, maxActive and so on.
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:48:03 +0000 (UTC)
Ioana Danes <ioanasoftware at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I am doing a performance test on pgpool only for pooling, no replication, no failover and no load balancing.
> Here is a snapshot of the pgpool parameters I thought are relevant:
> num_init_children = 200
> max_pool = 1
> child_life_time = 300
> child_max_connections = 0
> connection_life_time = 0
> client_idle_limit = 0
> connection_cache = on
> reset_query_list = 'ABORT; DISCARD ALL'
> replication_mode = off
> load_balance_mode = off
> master_slave_mode = off
> use_watchdog = off
> Postgres database has max_connections = 250 and there is no other application using it.
> I am using 1300 clients and with tomcat jdbc connection pool it typically needs around 60 database connections. When I am using pgpool instead of tomcat jdbc connection pool I run out of the 200 connections when not even half of the clients are running.
> Error from the web application:
> persistence.StorageException: The connection attempt failed.
> SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 (x86_64)
> VERSION = 11
> PATCHLEVEL = 3
> Is this the expected behaviour, is Tomcat connection pooling better that pgpool at reusing connections or I am doing something wrong?
> Thank you,
> pgpool-general mailing list
> pgpool-general at pgpool.net
Yugo Nagata <nagata at sraoss.co.jp
More information about the pgpool-general