On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 11:13, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> > Since PG doesn't have active-active clustering, that's out, but since
> > the database will be very static, why not have, say 8 machines, each
> > with it's own copy of the database? (Since there are so few updates,
> > you feed the updates to a litle Perl app that then makes the changes
> > on each machine.) (A round-robin load balancer would do the trick
> > in utilizing them all.)
>
> Another approach I've seen work is to have several servers connect to one SAN
> or NAS where the data lives. Only one server is enabled to handle "write"
> requests; all the rest are read-only. This does mean having dispacting
> middleware that parcels out requests among the servers, but works very well
> for the java-based company that's using it.
Wouldn't the cache on the read-only databases get out of sync with
the true on-disk data?
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian |
| because I hate vegetables!" |
| unknown |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
