Re: Horizontal Write Scaling

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: koichi(dot)szk(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Eliot Gable <egable+pgsql-hackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Horizontal Write Scaling
Date: 2010-11-25 15:06:39
Message-ID: AANLkTikCYE-FkQ97Vw7sS_mQe17hKhpVZHe4Y9UjnqGQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Koichi Suzuki <koichi(dot)szk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> plus the
>>> communication protocol overhead and latency. However, it occurs to me
>>> that if you had a shared disk system via either iSCSI, Fiber Channel,
>>> NFS, or whatever (which also had higher I/O capabilities than a single
>>> server could utilize), if you used a file system that supported locks on
>>> a particular section (extent) of a file, it should theoretically be
>>> possible for multiple Postgres instances on multiple systems sharing the
>>> database to read and write to the database without causing corruption.
>>
>> Possible, yes. Worthwile to do, probably not.
>
> We may be suffered from synchronizing cache on each database.

That's putting it mildly. You have to worry about the database buffer
cache, the shared invalidation queue, the control file data, the
ProcArray, the lock manager, the LWLock tables, and probably some
other things I'm forgetting about. Everything in shared memory, in
short.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-25 15:07:56 Re: reporting reason for certain locks
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-11-25 15:05:00 Re: reporting reason for certain locks