Well, not scalable doesn't have to mean "not good". That's why I
asked. Considering this is one of the problems with mosix clusters
(process migration and associated restrictions) and the nature of
PostgreSQL's implementation I'm not sure what other result may of been
expected. Because of that, I wasn't sure if something else was being
implied.
Greg
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 08:40, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> > good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
> > On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 06:15, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:53PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > Have already tested postgres on a mosix cluster, and as expected results
> > > are not good. (although mosix does the correct thing in keeping all the
> > > database backend processes on one node).
>
> Well, I guess in kind of replication we are talking here, the performance will
> be enhanced only if separate instances of psotgresql runs on separate machine.
> Now if mosix kernel applies some AI and puts all of them on same machine, it
> isn't going to be any good for the purpose replication is deployed.
>
> I guess that's what she meant..
>
> Bye
> Shridhar
>
> --
> User n.: A programmer who will believe anything you tell him.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
