| From: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "PFC" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-22 20:36:34 |
| Message-ID: | 18436.24.91.171.78.1151008594.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>> What you seem not to grasp at this point is a large web-farm, about 10
>> or
>> more servers running PHP, Java, ASP, or even perl. The database is
>> usually
>> the most convenient and, aside from the particular issue we are talking
>> about, best suited.
>
> The answer is sticky sessions : each user is assigned to one and only one
> webserver in the cluster and his session is maintained locally, in RAM. No
> locks, no need to manage distributed session...
>
>> I actually have a good number of years of experience in this topic, and
>> memcached or file system files are NOT the best solutions for a server
>> farm.
>
> If sessions are distributed, certainly, but if sessions are sticky to
> their own server ?
And what if a particulr server goes down? or gets too high a percentage of
the load?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-06-22 20:42:10 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-06-22 20:31:13 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |