Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Warm standby architecture opinions

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>
Cc: sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Warm standby architecture opinions
Date: 2005-04-19 17:58:24
Message-ID: 200504191058.24639.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: sfpug
Jeff,

> Do you mean 3x the performance for the NAS or 3x the performance for the
> actual server.  3x the performance for 25% extra cost sounds quite
> impressive, though I suspect that's not really the case.  You have of
> course picqued my interest, and we haven't placed the order yet, so let me
> look into the IBMs and Penguins.

Server.  For the NAS, it'll be more like 3x to 5x the cost.  

> > As a comparison:  I have one dot-com client running on Dell 2650s, and
> > they have a 3-machine Slony cluster that just keeps up with their load. 
> > I've another client with a website about twice as busy, and they run
> > everything off of a single quad-Opteron home build.
>
> And their queries are all comparable?

Well, the Dell client has a slightly higher Write/Read ratio of activity.  But 
very similar, yes.


-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

sfpug by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-04-24 00:25:03
Subject: ACM paper?
Previous:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2005-04-19 16:49:27
Subject: Re: Warm standby architecture opinions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group