From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta(at)wp(dot)pl>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: question about readonly instances |
Date: | 2011-05-19 02:08:05 |
Message-ID: | 4DD47B85.5090709@postnewspapers.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 05/19/2011 04:33 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
>
>
> On 18 May 2011 22:22, Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta(at)wp(dot)pl
> <mailto:ipluta(at)wp(dot)pl>> wrote:
>
> W dniu 2011-05-18 13:21, Szymon Guz pisze:
>
> Hi,
> I've got a question about quite a strange configuration.
> I was asked if we can have one storage, with one data directory
> where one postgresql instance writes data, and many other
> instances read those.
> Is that possible without any replication and copying data?
>
>
> Why do they think they need that?
>
>
> They've got some quite nice and huge storage and it would be nice to use
> it from many different machines running postgreses.
> Another option is Oracle which can do that.
If you're thinking of Oracle RAC: be careful. Anecdotal reports I've
heard suggest that a RAC cluster needs to be about 3 machines before it
equals the performance of a single standalone Oracle instance on same
kind of hardware. I have no personal experience with this, though, and
am under the impression that the people I've heard talking about it were
referring to multi-master setups. It's possible that single-master
setups with read-only slaves are more efficient. It's also possible that
they were just wrong. All I'm saying is that you should investigate
carefully.
--
Craig Ringer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig de Stigter | 2011-05-19 02:10:28 | dump & restore to different schema |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2011-05-19 02:00:11 | Re: Using libpq with Visual Studio 2008 |