| From: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL advocacy | 
| Date: | 2016-03-22 15:15:27 | 
| Message-ID: | ncrnig$h31$1@ger.gmane.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Bruce Momjian schrieb am 22.03.2016 um 16:07:
> For me, streaming replication fully solves the high reliability problem
> and sharding fully solves the scaling problem.  Of course, if you need
> both, you have to deploy both, which gives you 100% of two solutions,
> rather than Oracle RAC which gives you 50% of each.  
> 
> However, I do think database upgrades are easier with Oracle RAC, and I
> think it is much easier to add/remove nodes than with sharding.  For me,
> this chart summarizes it:
> 
>                          HA   Scaling  Upgrade Add/Remove
>         Oracle RAC       50%     50%    easy    easy
>         Streaming Rep.  100%     25%*   hard    easy
>         Sharding          0%    100%    hard    hard
>         
>         * Allows read scaling
To be fair: you don't need RAC in Oracle to get streaming replication.
You can use a hot-standby in Oracle the same way you do in Postgres
And if you use a "cold-standby" (where only the archive logs are applied, but the instance is not started) you don't even have to pay for the second license.
> However, I do think database upgrades are easier with Oracle RAC
I think you can do a rolling upgrade with a standby, but I'm not entirely sure.
Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2016-03-22 16:16:22 | Re: PostgreSQL advocacy | 
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-03-22 15:07:28 | Re: PostgreSQL advocacy |