Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
| От | Mark Woodward |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 18436.24.91.171.78.1151008594.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC (PFC <lists@peufeu.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> >> 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... > >> I actually have a good number of years of experience in this topic, and >> memcached or file system files are NOT the best solutions for a server >> farm. > > If sessions are distributed, certainly, but if sessions are sticky to > their own server ? And what if a particulr server goes down? or gets too high a percentage of the load?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: