| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Mason S <masonlists(at)gmail(dot)com>, obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |
| Date: | 2015-08-31 20:23:25 |
| Message-ID: | 55E4B7BD.8090707@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/31/2015 01:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All, Bruce:
>
> I'm also going to pontificate that, for a future solution, we should not
> focus on write *IO*, but rather on CPU and RAM. The reason for this
> thinking is that, with the latest improvements in hardware and 9.5
> improvements, it's increasingly rare for machines to be bottlenecked on
> writes to the transaction log (or the heap). This has some implications
> for system design. For example, solutions which require all connections
> to go through a single master node do not scale sufficiently to be worth
> bothering with.
We see this already, under very high concurrency (lots of connections,
many cores) we often see a significant drop in performance that is not
related to IO in any meaningful way.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2015-08-31 20:25:08 | Re: Should \o mean "everything?" |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-08-31 20:16:21 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |