| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-22 20:19:43 |
| Message-ID: | 449AFB5F.4020807@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
PFC wrote:
>
>> What you seem not to grasp at this point is a large web-farm, about
>> 10 or
>> more servers running PHP, Java, ASP, or even perl. The database is
>> usually
>> the most convenient and, aside from the particular issue we are talking
>> about, best suited.
>
>
> The answer is sticky sessions : each user is assigned to one and
> only one webserver in the cluster and his session is maintained
> locally, in RAM. No locks, no need to manage distributed session...
Sticky sessions can cause enormous problems. I have just worked on a
site whose problems largely come back to having to use a load balancer
in front of an app server farm that required sticky sessions.
They are not a solution, they are a disease.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-06-22 20:28:34 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-06-22 20:12:18 | Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions |