So do you need to change CONN_MAX_AGE? I'm not sure why

It's clear at least that you probably don't really want 161 workers on a 24-CPU controller node, unless it's intended to serve a lot of devs concurrently... but I'm not sure how changing CONN_MAX_AGE will help anything.

You need to reduce the number of workers, or increase the number of allowed connections.

It makes sense to me that, any workers that can't get a database handle cannot help at all. Timing them out won't make things better (well, maybe that's wrong... even with 161 healthy workers, you probably wouldn't want 161 idle database connections to remain persistent at all times unless you actually had 161 currently active workers serving client requests.)

I don't see any reason we can't add both of these to controller params, I'm just not sure if we should also add a configuration option for the number of connections allowed to the database while we're in there. (You might actually want to serve thousands of concurrent app developers, and maybe the default value of GUNICORN_WORKERS is actually what you wanted.)

Probably that is a separate issue, though.

@Bregor So you are currently setting using ENV vars on the deis-controller deployment object to fix this issue? We should alternately allow users to be able to define GUNICORN_WORKERS and CONN_MAX_AGE on the helm values passed to the workflow install.

However, are the default values set correct in most cases when there are not that many users?

you are currently setting using ENV vars on the deis-controller deployment object to fix this issue

Yes. Deis database is a server with only one client (deis-controller), so this client should respect its settings. There should not be possible to run more gunicorn workers than max_connections in deis-database.

However, are the default values set correct in most cases when there are not that many users?

TL;DR: for now nodes can not contains more than 24 CPU

It's pretty easy to count:

• healthcheck period: 5 seconds
• TTL of pooled connection: 600 seconds
• actual limit of connections: 100
• current number of workers: cpu_count * 4 + 1

This way every 5 seconds new worker became alive and is trying to run SELECT 0 amongst deis-database.
While there is no pooled connections aged more than 600 seconds AND pool size (which is equal to GUNICORN_WORKERS) still has open slots, it will open new connection for 600 seconds.
While we run one worker per 5 seconds, there will be 120 workers (600/5) before first connection in pool will be freed.
Considering formula for calculation of current number of workers and fact we can not change connection TTL, there is strict limit: 24 CPUs per node for deis-controller to work.

Do you think this is an important knob? I kind of think we should just set a cap for the maximum allowed value of GUNICORN_WORKERS, unless we're also going to allow users to tune max_connections in deis-database.

Been reading this: https://github.com/concourse/concourse/wiki/Anti-Patterns#knobs

I'd guess 64 as a reasonable high-end limit. If we're making it tuneable, it should be tuneable both ways.

(Personally I use deis-database for something other than deis-controller so I don't want it to consume all 100 connections, if the limit is 100. I know that's against the advice, but I'm not sure it is documented anywhere as such...)

unless we're also going to allow users to tune max_connections in deis-database.

Doesn't max_connections in deis-database also depend on where you are running the postgresql database? For example, you can tune max_connection setting in AWS RDS and restart the db. This seems like a very custom request to support larger servers. I support making it tunable but having sane defaults for users who are not going to go that deep at first.

Tuneable max_connections is a cherry on a cake. Most of the time it's absolutely useless. Rephrasing B. Gates: "100 connections are enough for everyone" ;)
With short-living pooled connections, 100 actual connection is pretty enough to serve hundreds of developers on site.

I'm just trying to avoid adding an unnecessary knob, because it's possible to tune a knob wrong.

I'm not actually in favor of adding either knob, if we can simply write a rule that will guarantee it never fails on machines with >24 CPUs. That's a good point though, we can't always guarantee max_connections will be defaulted to 100, from a quick Google it actually looks like the default setting of max_connections on RDS postgres is...

uhh, parameterized[1] based on the amount of memory in your database? Well that's super... my idea is therefore out the window. There is no rule we could write that is guaranteed to be correct, not at least without additional knowledge about your off-cluster databases, if that's the case.

I'll consider that as due-diligence done, I'm satisfied that we should add a way to tune GUNICORN_WORKERS and CONN_MAX_AGE, and skip any further consideration about max_connections for now, since nobody is really here asking for that.

started in #75

I haven't tested teamhephy/workflow#66 yet, but it should work