Re: Partitioning / Clustering - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Partitioning / Clustering
Date
Msg-id 200505102144.07254.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioning / Clustering  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: Partitioning / Clustering
List pgsql-performance
Neil,

> Sure, but that hardly makes it not "usable". Considering the price of
> RAM these days, having enough RAM to hold the database (distributed over
> the entire cluster) is perfectly acceptable for quite a few people.

The other problem, as I was told it at OSCON, was that these were not
high-availability clusters; it's impossible to add a server to an existing
cluster, and a server going down is liable to take the whole cluster down.
Mind you, I've not tried that aspect of it myself; once I saw the ram-only
rule, we switched to something else.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning / Clustering
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Prefetch