From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Glen Eustace" <geustace(at)godzone(dot)net(dot)nz> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Running postgresql as a VMware ESx client |
Date: | 2008-11-24 02:03:37 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10811231803tca37f5ev7952c50696383aea@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Glen Eustace <geustace(at)godzone(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
>
>> Generally speaking, virtualization allows you to take a bunch of low
>> powered servers and make them live in one big box saving money on
>> electricity and management. Generally speaking, database sers are big
>> powerful boxes with lots of hard disks and gigs upon gigs of ram to
>> handle terabytes of data. Those two things seem at odds to me.
>
> If one is handling databases with Terabytes of data and 1000s of
> connections, I would agree. We will be looking at 100s of Megabytes max and
> possible several hundred connections. A much smaller workload.
Yeah, you're not really looking at heavy lifting here then. Should be fine.
>
>> What, exactly, as you looking to gain by running pgsql under vmware on
>> such hardware?
>
> Mobility, in the HA/DR sense. Being able to vmotion the server while it is
> running to rectify hardware issues or perform upgrades. To bring the server
> up at a DR site automagically using SRM. And yes, we have still to
> investigate the whole crash consistency stuff with SRM. This database is
> heavily biased toward reads rather than writes.
Given the light load you're looking at running, you'll likely be ok as
long as there aren't any issues with crash recovery.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ciprian Dorin Craciun | 2008-11-24 05:27:05 | Re: Using Postgres to store high volume streams of sensor readings |
Previous Message | Glen Eustace | 2008-11-24 01:47:26 | Re: Running postgresql as a VMware ESx client |