| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruno Almeida do Lago" <teolupus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Mitch Pirtle'" <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Date: | 2005-01-21 01:25:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200501201725.41528.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Bruno,
> Which brings up another question: why not just cluster at the hardware
> layer? Get an external fiberchannel array, and cluster a bunch of dual
> Opterons, all sharing that storage. In that sense you would be getting
> one big PostgreSQL 'image' running across all of the servers.
>
> Or is that idea too 90's? ;-)
No, it just doesn't work. Multiple postmasters can't share one database.
LinuxLabs (as I've gathered) tried to go one better by using a tool that
allows shared memory to bridge multple networked servers -- in other words,
one postmaster controlling 4 or 5 servers. The problem is that IPC via this
method is about 1,000 times slower than IPC on a single machine, wiping out
all of the scalability gains from having the cluster in the first place.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-01-21 01:30:40 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-01-21 01:04:19 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |