Re: question about readonly instances

From: "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Szymon Guz *EXTERN*" <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Ireneusz Pluta" <ipluta(at)wp(dot)pl>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: question about readonly instances
Date: 2011-05-19 08:30:03
Message-ID: D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C20670CD1C@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Szymon Guz wrote:
>>> I've got a question about quite a strange configuration.
>>> I was asked if we can have one storage, with one data directory where one postgresql
>>> instance writes data, and many other instances read those.
>>> Is that possible without any replication and copying data?
>>
>> Why do they think they need that?
>
> They've got some quite
> nice and huge storage and it would be nice to use it from many different machines running postgreses.

I'm surprised to hear that.
Normally storage is the bottleneck for a database, i.e. you would
not gain performance if more than one database ran against the same storage.

> Another option is Oracle which can do that.

I have not heard that RAC is a performance booster.
It's more like a protection against certain types of hardware failure.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Albe Laurenz 2011-05-19 08:34:28 Re: 500KB PDF saving into large object , what is the table size?
Previous Message Hitoshi Harada 2011-05-19 08:27:50 Re: optimizing a cpu-heavy query