Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Woodward
Subject Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Date
Msg-id 18436.24.91.171.78.1151008594.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (PFC <lists@peufeu.com>)
Responses Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (Rick Gigger <rick@alpinenetworking.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
>
>> What you seem not to grasp at this point is a large web-farm, about 10
>> or
>> more servers running PHP, Java, ASP, or even perl. The database is
>> usually
>> the most convenient and, aside from the particular issue we are talking
>> about, best suited.
>
>     The answer is sticky sessions : each user is assigned to one and only one
> webserver in the cluster and his session is maintained locally, in RAM. No
> locks, no need to manage distributed session...
>
>> I actually have a good number of years of experience in this topic, and
>> memcached or file system files are NOT the best solutions for a server
>> farm.
>
>     If sessions are distributed, certainly, but if sessions are sticky to
> their own server ?

And what if a particulr server goes down? or gets too high a percentage of
the load?


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC