| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Konstantin Osipov <kostja(dot)osipov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik(at)postgres(dot)ai>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Built-in Raft replication |
| Date: | 2025-04-16 19:29:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmm+QJnL_APyKhM3hjkOv9DXjWaqJxB2nFDuNH9JqVdTfXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 2:18 AM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Users find it a waste of resources to deploy 3 big PostgreSQL instances
> just for HA where 2 suffice even if they deploy 3 lightweight DCS
> instances. Having only some of the nodes act as DCS and others purely
> PostgreSQL nodes will reduce waste of resources.
>
A big problem is that putting your DCS into Postgres means your whole
system is now super-sensitive to IO/WAL-streaming issues, and a busy
database doing database stuff is going to start affecting the DCS stuff.
With three lightweight DCS servers, you don't really need to worry about
how stressed the database servers are. In that way, I feel etcd et al. are
adhering to the unix philosophy of "do one thing, and do it well."
Cheers,
Greg
--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Osipov | 2025-04-16 19:35:34 | Re: Built-in Raft replication |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-04-16 19:13:20 | Re: Performance issues with v18 SQL-language-function changes |