From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Options for growth |
Date: | 2003-01-24 22:01:39 |
Message-ID: | 20030124170139.U32645@mail.libertyrms.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:23:52PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> The estimates I've heard from a couple parties are that PostgreSQL tends
> to scale well up to 4 CPUs. I've been meaning to take a look at
> improving that, but I haven't had a chance yet...
I can definitely tell you that Postgres scales _fine_ beyond 4
processors. Indeed, we have found under some loads that 4 processors
is not enough; but when we put it into an 8- or more-way box, it is
much faster.
That's on Solaris, though, which is generally very good at handling
greater-than-4 CPUs. That's why Solaris is a good platform for us,
even though its fork() times rot.
> think the cost of subsidizing some of that development would be a
> fraction of the license fees you'll end up paying Oracle over the
> years...
And it's worth pointing out what those ORAC licenses really cost: it
might be as little as the savings of a single year.
By the way ORAC may not be _quite_ as bulletproof as it seems. It
shares file areas, and there are rumours of locking troubles that
people trip over. Nothing they'll share with you, of course: the
license forbids as much. But if you ask someone over the top of a
glass, he or she might tell you about it.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2003-01-24 23:14:39 | docbook and postgresql |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-24 21:09:48 | Re: Client interfaces documentation |