From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Steve Wolfe" <nw(at)codon(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question on hardware & server capacity |
Date: | 2003-01-06 19:14:50 |
Message-ID: | 200301061114.50830.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Steve,
> We're splitting the front-end across a number of machines, but all of
> the various datasets are sufficiently intertwined that they all have to be
> in the same database. I'm going to fiddle around with some of the
> available replication options and see if they're robust enough to put them
> into production.
2 other suggestions:
1. Both PostgreSQL Inc. and Command Prompt Inc. have some sort of pay-for HA
solution for Postgres. Paying them may end up being cheaper than
improvising this yourself.
2. Zapatec Inc. has acheived impressive performance gains by putting the
database on a high-speed, HA gigabit NAS server and having a few "client
servers" handle incoming queries. You may want to experiment along these
lines.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-01-07 03:32:52 | Re: PostgreSQL and memory usage |
Previous Message | Tomasz Myrta | 2003-01-06 11:03:19 | views vs pl/pgsql |