Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I feel the shared-* issue splits us up like master/slave and
> > > > multi-master splits up
> > >
> > > No, not quite. To sum up, I'd say the following combinations make sense:
> > >
> > > sync, multi-master replication on shared-memory cluster (which is much
> > > like a super-computer. With shared memory distributing locks does not
> > > cost much - beside marketing, there is probably not much sense in
> > > calling this a cluster at all).
> >
> > Wow, how is that different than an multi-CPU server?
>
> You can't have 1000 cpus :).. You can have 1000 dual core servers.
But does anyone make a shared-memory cluster that can do 1000 cpu's?
Sounds like Sequent, but I didn't think anyone was doing this anymore.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +