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.
Have them share all their memory is the challenge, though. Ask IBM, they
certainly do big-irons like that.
As I said, it's like a super-computer, but you can also see it as a
cluster of CPUs with shared memory and shared disks. It's all just a
matter of your point of view.
Regards
Markus