3 ms·
+1 to ProxySQL, especially in RDS environments with huge monoliths attached that open a shitload of threads. RDS has fixed max_connections depending on the inst
by darkwater 9mo ago
+1 to ProxySQL, especially in RDS environments with huge monoliths attached that open a shitload of threads. RDS has fixed max_connections depending on the instance size so if you don't want to pay $$$$ for bigger but underused instances - and while you are trying to get the devs update all the hundreds old dependencies in the monolith to improve it, ProxySQL - can save your day. It did, for me.
And yes, it's a self-managed system but it's pretty easy to operate and very stable.
- wreath 9mo agoYou can change the max_connections in RDS though. The default is insanely high and I have no idea what it is that way. 4vCPU instances running with 5k max connections iirc, I have never seen an instance this size handle more than 100-200 concurrent connections on a CPU bound workload.
- darkwater 9mo agoThere is still a max capped on the instance size [1] (well, RAM available) although now that I'm checking it again I swear it was different last time I read it. Anyway I did totally had issues with big replicated monoliths with their own connection pool (i.e. old Rails) maxing out connections on RDS. [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_Limits.html#RDS_Limits.MaxConnections https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_...