| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Date: | 2005-01-20 14:48:07 |
| Message-ID: | 4C477AFA-6AF2-11D9-9D52-000D9366F0C4@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Jan 20, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
> Sorry but I don't agree with this ... Slony is a replication solution
> ... I
> don't need replication ... what will I do when my database will grow
> up to 50
> Gb ... I'll need more than 50 Gb of RAM on each server ???
Slony doesn't use much ram. The mysql clustering product, ndb I believe
it is called, requires all data fit in RAM. (At least, it used to).
What you'll need is disk space.
As for a cluster I think you are thinking of multi-master replication.
You should look into what others have said about trying to partiition
data among several boxes and then join the results together.
Or you could fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars for Oracle's
RAC.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-01-20 14:49:56 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-01-20 14:44:16 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |