Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

This idea won't work with postgresql only one instance can operate on a
datastore at a time.

Dave

Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:

>
>I was thinking the same! I'd like to know how other databases such as Oracle
>do it.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Mitch Pirtle
>Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:42 PM
>To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
>
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
><darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>>Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache. that way you just build
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the whole
>>database in memory in the whole cluster. More information on it can be
>>
>>
>found
>
>
>>at: http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/
>>
>>
>
>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? ;-)
>
>-- Mitch
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>
>
>