| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kelvin Quee <kelvinq(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, JiaYi Lee <leejiayi(at)gmail(dot)com>, lim(dot)ck(dot)michael(at)gmail(dot)com, elias(dot)soong(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$? |
| Date: | 2009-07-22 11:54:16 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10907220454p4fe606c9s9302c4081518ff21@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Kelvin Quee<kelvinq(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> I have been staring at *top* for a while and it's mostly been 40% in
> userspace and 30% in system. Wait is rather low and never ventures
> beyond 1%.
>
> My hardware is a duo core AMD Athlon64 X2 5000+, 1GB RAM and a single
> 160 GB SATA II hard disk drive.
So I take it you're on a tight budget then? I'm guessing you could
put a single quad core cpu and 8 Gigs of ram in place for a reasonable
price. I'd highly recommend setting up at least software RAID-1 for
increased reliability.
> I will go look at Slony now.
Might be overkill if you can get by on a single reasonably powerful machine.
> Scott, one question though - If my master is constantly changing,
> wouldn't the updates from the master to the slave also slow down the
> slave?
Yes it will, but the overhead for the slave is much less than the master.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-22 13:54:37 | Re: Atomic access to large arrays |
| Previous Message | Victor de Buen | 2009-07-22 08:12:42 | Re: Atomic access to large arrays |