On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> Replication won't help if those are all mostly write transactions. If a
> small percentage, even 1% would be challenging, is INSERTS, UPDATES or
> DELETES, master / slave replication might get you somewhere.
There is no way on earth we could be doing writes at that rate. I think
that's a given.
> Otherwise you're going to need to partition the data up into smaller,
> easily managed sizes -- that of course requires an ability to
> horizontally partition the data.
Obviously, this is the route we have taken.
> Anyway, if you want a sane answer we need more information about the
> data (is it partitionable?), schema type, queries producing the load
> (simple or complex), acceptable data delays (does a new insert need to
> be immediately visible?), etc.
We've considered a lot of this. Like I said, I think a lot of our need
for distributing the database can be helped along with native
replication. Am I hearing that nobody believes scalability is a
concern? I think many of us would like to see features that would
allow large scale installations to be more practical. I also think most
of us would agree that the current "graft-on" replication methods are
sub-ideal.
alex
--
alex@posixnap.net
Alex J. Avriette, Unix Systems Gladiator
The Emperor Wears No Clothes.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
