| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Date: | 2005-01-20 14:51:21 |
| Message-ID: | 41EFC569.6030800@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>>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 ???
>>>This solution is not very realistic for me ...
>>>
>>>I need a Cluster solution not a replication one or explain me in details
>>>how I will do for managing the scalabilty of my database ...
>>
>>Buy Oracle
>
>
> I think this is not my solution ... sorry I'm talking about finding a
> PostgreSQL solution ...
My point being is that there is no free solution. There simply isn't.
I don't know why you insist on keeping all your data in RAM, but the
mysql cluster requires that ALL data MUST fit in RAM all the time.
PostgreSQL has replication, but not partitioning (which is what you want).
So, your only option is Oracle or another very expensive commercial
database.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hervé Piedvache | 2005-01-20 14:54:23 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-01-20 14:49:56 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |