Re: HA options

From: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: HA options
Date: 2012-01-16 22:13:18
Message-ID: 4F14A0FE.7070500@squeakycode.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 1/16/2012 4:09 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 01/16/12 2:04 PM, Tim Uckun wrote:
>> I realize that. Eventually we might have to go to physical machines
>> but for now we are using virtual servers and I have to make it work
>> within that structure.
>
> quite the catch-22. a single well built dedicated server likely would be
> MORE reliable than a cluster of two virtual servers, and a lot less
> complicated. C'est la vie.
>
>
>

I wonder. If its a write heavy database, I totally agree with you. But
if its mostly read-only, and mostly fits in ram, then a pgpool of
servers should be faster.

Be nice to know the usage patterns of this database. (and size).

-Andy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alan Hodgson 2012-01-16 22:14:55 Re: HA options
Previous Message John R Pierce 2012-01-16 22:09:04 Re: HA options