| 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 22:15:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4F14A192.7090703@squeakycode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 1/16/2012 4:13 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
> 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
>
crap. ignore me. You used "reliable" and "complicated", and I used
"faster". I really should read things more closely.
-Andy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tim Uckun | 2012-01-16 23:21:53 | Re: HA options |
| Previous Message | Alan Hodgson | 2012-01-16 22:14:55 | Re: HA options |