From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, a(dot)mitani(at)sra-europe(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgcluster-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [Pgcluster-general] PostgreSQL Documentation of |
Date: | 2006-11-21 22:45:09 |
Message-ID: | 200611212245.kALMj9N18522@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I feel the shared-* issue splits us up like master/slave and
> > > > multi-master splits up
> > >
> > > No, not quite. To sum up, I'd say the following combinations make sense:
> > >
> > > sync, multi-master replication on shared-memory cluster (which is much
> > > like a super-computer. With shared memory distributing locks does not
> > > cost much - beside marketing, there is probably not much sense in
> > > calling this a cluster at all).
> >
> > Wow, how is that different than an multi-CPU server?
>
> You can't have 1000 cpus :).. You can have 1000 dual core servers.
But does anyone make a shared-memory cluster that can do 1000 cpu's?
Sounds like Sequent, but I didn't think anyone was doing this anymore.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-11-22 03:44:34 | Re: [Pgcluster-general] PostgreSQL Documentation of |
Previous Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2006-11-21 22:35:35 | Re: [Pgcluster-general] PostgreSQL Documentation of |