From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Peer to peer replication of Postgresql databases |
Date: | 2002-10-11 13:40:26 |
Message-ID: | 3DA72222.20021.A0C58DF@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
> I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
> On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 06:15, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:53PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Have already tested postgres on a mosix cluster, and as expected results
> > are not good. (although mosix does the correct thing in keeping all the
> > database backend processes on one node).
Well, I guess in kind of replication we are talking here, the performance will
be enhanced only if separate instances of psotgresql runs on separate machine.
Now if mosix kernel applies some AI and puts all of them on same machine, it
isn't going to be any good for the purpose replication is deployed.
I guess that's what she meant..
Bye
Shridhar
--
User n.: A programmer who will believe anything you tell him.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2002-10-11 14:00:13 | Re: [HACKERS] number of attributes in page files? |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-11 13:38:23 | Re: MySQL vs PostgreSQL. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-10-11 14:49:17 | Re: Peer to peer replication of Postgresql databases |
Previous Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-10-11 13:30:55 | Re: Peer to peer replication of Postgresql databases |