[rt-users] Apache FastCGI and # of db connections

[Václav Ovsík]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 07:13:28PM -0500, Alex Vandiver wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 11:45 +0100, Václav Ovsík wrote:
> > I have a question regarding behaviour of FastCGI processes and database
> > connections. While preparing upgrade of RT 3.8.16 to RT 4.2.1 I noticed
> > a change of FastCGI usage in the RT.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  This is a bug which affects
> RT 4.0 and 4.2; the 4.0/fewer-active-handles branch resolves the issue.

I have applied changes from your new branch and database handles are OK
now.


> > I did not study Plack too much - only look at
> > http://search.cpan.org/~miyagawa/Plack-1.0030/lib/Plack/Handler/FCGI.pm
> > and there is approach a bit different. One daemon is started standalone
> > (forking to a number of processes) and Apache is configured to connect
> > to this daemon
> >  FastCgiExternalServer /tmp/myapp.fcgi -socket /tmp/fcgi.sock
> 
> This is a valid alternate deployment strategy, which comes with the
> benefit that one can restart one RT server without affecting others, by
> restarting its fastcgi process.  However, it requires additional system
> configuration to ensure that these processes are started at server
> startup time, and so forth, which is why this is not the deployment
> suggested in RT's documentation, which we aim to keep as simple as
> possible.

I understand it.


> > Should I really increase PostgreSQL max_connections to 100 and don't
> > bother with it?
> 
> Until a version of RT is released with the above branch, increasing the
> max_connections is likely your best bet.  The additional connections
> will consume some small amount of memory each, but this is likely
> negligible, and will have no performance impact.
>  - Alex

I have GIT versioned installed RT files, so no problem to apply some
changes directly into installed RT instances.
Thanks for quick response and good job!
Best Regards
-- 
Zito