On 1/16/2012 4:13 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
> On 1/16/2012 4:09 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 01/16/12 2:04 PM, Tim Uckun wrote:
>>> I realize that. Eventually we might have to go to physical machines
>>> but for now we are using virtual servers and I have to make it work
>>> within that structure.
>>
>> quite the catch-22. a single well built dedicated server likely would be
>> MORE reliable than a cluster of two virtual servers, and a lot less
>> complicated. C'est la vie.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I wonder. If its a write heavy database, I totally agree with you. But
> if its mostly read-only, and mostly fits in ram, then a pgpool of
> servers should be faster.
>
> Be nice to know the usage patterns of this database. (and size).
>
> -Andy
>
crap. ignore me. You used "reliable" and "complicated", and I used
"faster". I really should read things more closely.
-Andy