Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> My point being, no matter how terrible an idea a certain storage media
>> is, there's always a use case for it.  Even if it's very narrow.
>
> The trouble is, if extra subscribers induce load on the "master,"
> which they presumably will, then that sliver of "use case" may very
> well get obscured by the cost, such that the sliver should be treated
> as not existing :-(.

One master, one slave, master handles all writes, slave handles all of
the other subscribers. I've run a setup like this with as many as 8
or so slaves at the bottom of the pile with no problems at all.