Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
От | Bruno Almeida do Lago |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 000001c4ff51$c0e985e0$e883f40a@br.gedasgrp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering (Mitch Pirtle <mitch.pirtle@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Список | pgsql-performance |
I was thinking the same! I'd like to know how other databases such as Oracle do it. -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Pirtle Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:42 PM To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.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@postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: