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

Re: Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$?

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kelvin Quee <kelvinq(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, JiaYi Lee <leejiayi(at)gmail(dot)com>, lim(dot)ck(dot)michael(at)gmail(dot)com, elias(dot)soong(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$?
Date: 2009-07-22 11:54:16
Message-ID: dcc563d10907220454p4fe606c9s9302c4081518ff21@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Kelvin Quee<kelvinq(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> I have been staring at *top* for a while and it's mostly been 40% in
> userspace and 30% in system. Wait is rather low and never ventures
> beyond 1%.
>
> My hardware is a duo core AMD Athlon64 X2 5000+, 1GB RAM and a single
> 160 GB SATA II hard disk drive.

So I take it you're on a tight budget then?  I'm guessing you could
put a single quad core cpu and 8 Gigs of ram in place for a reasonable
price.  I'd highly recommend setting up at least software RAID-1 for
increased reliability.

> I will go look at Slony now.

Might be overkill if you can get by on a single reasonably powerful machine.

> Scott, one question though - If my master is constantly changing,
> wouldn't the updates from the master to the slave also slow down the
> slave?

Yes it will, but the overhead for the slave is much less than the master.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-22 13:54:37
Subject: Re: Atomic access to large arrays
Previous:From: Victor de BuenDate: 2009-07-22 08:12:42
Subject: Re: Atomic access to large arrays

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