Chuming Chen wrote:
> I want to set up a web site using apache httpd, php and postgresql. From
> the performance point of view, which architecture is better? 1) Run
> httpd and postgresql on the same machine; 2) Run postgresql on seperate
> machine. My concern is that the machine I am going to run httpd has
> limitted storage. I am expecting the increasing of postgresql database
> once I set it ip.
I had good luck with 4 very cheap (small, used, 1CPU, IDE disk)
machines running httpd/php/MONO-ASP.NET, and 1 more expensived
machine (with some internal failover capabilities - dual power
supplies, with a RAID array, with a support contract) running
The reasoning was one of cost/performance with the ability to
have likely-to-fail components fail with no downtime.
The cheapest way to scale the front-end machines with failover
capabilities was to use sub-$1000 slightly obsolete PCs.
The cheapest way I knew to provide limited scalability
and failover (at least for disk) for a database was a raid array.
With some of the newer replication features or pgpool, it might
be easier to scale "out" instead of "up"; but I have no experience
making that determination.
How about the rest of you guys....
If CPU demands in my database get to the point of needing 5-CPUs
with a read-mostly (90%) system, am I better off with
1 lots of replication between small servers
2 scaling up a big server.
(the reason I'm CPU bound instead of disk bound is that many
of my queries are spatial operations with PostGIS like unions
and buffers of polygons).
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Michael Fuhr||Date: 2005-01-19 01:59:37|
|Subject: Re: Using COPY for bulk upload in a table with sequence field|
|Previous:||From: Gautam Saha||Date: 2005-01-18 23:43:51|
|Subject: Using COPY for bulk upload in a table with sequence field|