From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Scalable ? |
Date: | 2003-10-10 16:55:42 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.44.0310101253380.78002-100000@torgo.978.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, [iso-8859-15] Herv Piedvache wrote:
> One other small question ... Does PostgreSQL is scalable ?
> I mean ... is it possible to have two servers, one rack of disks connected to
> the 2 servers to get access in same time to the same database ?
No. You need to replicate the DB to another machine to have this work -
and even still, all writes need to go to the 'master' db. Reads can go to
either.
> To be clear I would like to make a system with PostgreSQL able to answer about
> 70 000 000 requests by day (Internet services) ... I'm not sure about the
> server configuration I have to make.
>
Well, 70M requests/day is only about 810 / second - assuming we're talking
about simple selects that is very easy to achieve.
Considering hardware you should look at: multiple cpus, gigs of memory,
and very fast disks. (Raid5 w/battery backed write caches seem to be
popular).
You should also look at how much data this guy will hold, what is the
read/write ratio and all the "normal" things you should do while planning
a db.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason Hihn | 2003-10-10 17:09:34 | Re: One or more processor ? |
Previous Message | greg | 2003-10-10 16:44:21 | Re: Compare rows |