Re: Scalability (both vertical and horizontal)? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Ron Johnson |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Scalability (both vertical and horizontal)? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1063938123.11739.1673.camel@haggis Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Scalability (both vertical and horizontal)? ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
List | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:32, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Dennis Gearon wrote: > > > scott.marlowe wrote: > > > > >On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Duffey, Kevin wrote: [snip] > > Are there any databases that do well in horizontal scaling? What really > > *IS* Oracle Real Application Clusters? DECpaq ported VMSclusters to Tru64. Oracle then licensed that and built it into RAC. > I've heard Vax Clusters running RDB do well. It's seamless and extremely simple. On each node that you want the database open, you run the command: $RMU/OPEN <yourdatabase> The "root file" knows what transactions are open on each node, so if node FOO crashes, the MONITOR picks another node to apply the RECOVERY UNIT JOURNAL files from the transactions that were open on FOO when it crashed. (RDB doesn't use MVCC, so it keeps an RUJ file for each process, that has the "before images" of all table & index tuples involved in transactions. If the txn commits successfully, the file is zeroed out, but if it must be rolled back, the data is read back from the RUJ and applied back to the appropriate tablespace pages.) > TPF on a mainframe is highly recommended by Sabre, the Airline reservation > folks. > > I've heard horror stories about RAC though. > > I don't think there's anysuch thing as an easily configurable high > performance clustering solution. The better the run the more > infrastructure (hardware, software, support) they seem to need. VMSclusters are very easy to support, but the speed problem is there. It's just so much faster to from CPU0 to CPU15 in a 16x SMP or NUMA box, than it is between nodes is a 4x cluster of 4x SMP boxes. Also, you need so much extra *expensive* "stuff" to connect a bunch of boxen with dual-redundancy in a high-speed cluster. Database replication to a remote site that has a "smaller" box is usually a cheaper solution nowadays, since the remote box can still be used as a report engine. A recent development is "in-box clustering". Recent large Alpha systems (along with recent versions of VMS) allow for h/w partition- ing (like mainframes have done for, what, 20 years?, and Sun does with the Starfire). Thus, you can take a 16x machine and divvie it up into 4 nodes. The cool part is that inter-node chatter takes place at "in-box" speeds, instead of a wire speeds. So, you could have nodes dedicated to batch jobs, on-line access, etc. On-line on-the-fly re-partitioning allows you to take CPUs from underutilized nodes and allocate them to overtaxed nodes. Of course, RDB doesn't need a clue about this; it just runs. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA "What other evidence do you have that they are terrorists, other than that they trained in these camps?" 17-Sep-2002 Katie Couric to an FBI agent regarding the 5 men arrested near Buffalo NY
pgsql-general by date: