| From: | Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Date: | 2005-01-20 19:07:23 |
| Message-ID: | 200501201107.23964.darcy@wavefire.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On January 20, 2005 10:42 am, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
>
> <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com> wrote:
> > Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache. that way you just build
> > the farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the
> > whole database in memory in the whole cluster. More information on it
> > can be found at: http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/
>
> Which brings up another question: why not just cluster at the hardware
> layer? Get an external fiberchannel array, and cluster a bunch of dual
> Opterons, all sharing that storage. In that sense you would be getting
> one big PostgreSQL 'image' running across all of the servers.
It dosn't quite work that way, thanks to shared memory, and kernel disk cache.
(among other things)
>
> Or is that idea too 90's? ;-)
>
> -- Mitch
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ragnar Hafstað | 2005-01-20 19:12:06 | Re: [SQL] OFFSET impact on Performance??? |
| Previous Message | Hervé Piedvache | 2005-01-20 19:00:03 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |