Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support

Alex,

In our quest to see if we can get better performance out of PostgreSQL
by throwing more HW at it, I would have recommended a V880 also. I'm
curious to find out why you would have: "(in the past, I would have
suggested a Sun V880 for this database, but we are using Linux on
x86)" too.

Cheers,

Eddy

kbottner(at)comcast(dot)net ("Keith Bottner") wrote in message news:<007f01c3ef1c$6a230ab0$7d00a8c0(at)juxtapose>...
> Alex,
>
> I agree that this is something that is worth spending time on. This
> resembles the Oracle RAC (Real Application Cluster). While other people may
> feel that the amount of data is unreasonable I have a similar problem that
> will only be solved using such a solution.
>
> In regards to how your database is designed? Who cares? This is an RFC for a
> general discussion on how to design this level of functionality into
> Postgres. Ultimately any solution would work without regard to the insert,
> updates, or deletes being executed. Alex, I think as a first step we should
> start coming up with a feature list of what would be necessary to support
> this level of functionality. From that point we could then identify efforts
> that are currently ongoing on Postgres development that we could help out on
> as well as those items that would need to be handled directly.
>
> I am very interested in going forth with this discussion and believe that I
> would be able to have the company I work for put forward resources (i.e.
> people or money) on developing the solution if we can come up with a
> workable plan.
>
> Josh, thanks for the heads up on Clusgres, I will take a look and see how
> that fits.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Alex J. Avriette
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:29 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support
>
>
> Recently I was tasked with creating a "distribution system" for postgres
> nodes here at work. This would allow us to simply bring up a new box, push
> postgres to it, and have a new database.
>
> At the same time, we have started to approach the limits of what we can do
> with postgres on one machine. Our platform presently is the HP DL380. It is
> a reasonably fast machine, but in order to eke more performance out of
> postgres, we are going to have to upgrade the hardware substantially.
>
> So the subject came up, wouldn't it be nice if, with replication and
> proxies, we could create postgres clusters? When we need more throughput, to
> just put a new box in the cluster, dist a psotgres instance to it, and tell
> the proxy about it. This is a very attractive idea for us, from a
> scalability standpoint. It means that we don't have to buy $300,000 servers
> when we max out our 2- or 4- cpu machines (in the past, I would have
> suggested a Sun V880 for this database, but we are using Linux on x86).
>
> We are left with one last option, and that is re-engineering our application
> to distribute load across several instances of postgres which are operating
> without any real knowledge of eachother. I worry, though, that as our needs
> increase further, these application redesigns will become asymptotic.
>
> I find myself wondering what other people are doing with postgres that this
> doesn't seem to have come up. When one searches for postgres clustering on
> google, they will find lots of HA products. However, nobody seems to be
> attempting to create very high throughput clusters.
>
> I feel that it would be a very good thing if some thinking on this subject
> was done. In the future, people will hopefully begin using postgres for more
> intense applications. We are looking at perhaps many tens of billions of
> transactions per day within the next year or two. To simply buy a "bigger
> box" each time we outgrow the one we're on is not effective nor efficient. I
> simply don't believe we're the only ones pushing postgres this hard.
>
> I understand there are many applications out there trying to achieve
> replication. Some of them seem fairly promising. However, it seems to me
> that if we want to see a true clustered database environment, there would
> have to be actual native support in the postmaster (inter postmaster
> communication if you will) for replication and cross-instance locking.
>
> This is obviously a complicated problem, and probably not very many of us
> are doing anything near as large-scale as this. However, I am sure most of
> us can see the benefit of being able to provide support for these sorts of
> applications.
>
> I've just submitted this RFC in the hopes that we can discuss both the best
> way to support very large scale databases, as well as how to handle them
> presently.
>
> Thanks again for your time.
> alex
>
> --
> alex(at)posixnap(dot)net
> Alex J. Avriette, Solaris Systems Masseur
> "I ... remain against the death penalty because I feel that eternal boredom
> with no hope of parole is a much worse punishment than just ending it all
> mercifully with that quiet needle." - Rachel Mills, NC Libertarian
> Gubernatorial Candidate
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html