On 14 Oct 2002 at 11:55, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:10:26PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
> >
> > > I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> > > good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
> >
> > Well, I guess in kind of replication we are talking here, the
> > performance will be enhanced only if separate instances of psotgresql
> > runs on separate machine. Now if mosix kernel applies some AI and
> > puts all of them on same machine, it isn't going to be any good for
> > the purpose replication is deployed.
>
> Exactly. First, since we know what is going on, it is not necessary for
> the OS to decide what's going on. Secondly, database replication is not
> looked after at all, unless we do some crude tricks on the filesystem.
> Still it won't be efficient.
IMO any one layer of clustering should be enough. If you use mosix, you
shouldn't need clustering in postgresql. If postgresql clustering is applied
any heterogenous machines like freebsd/linux should do. (OK same architecture
at least. No suns and PCs..)
Let's keep aside mosix for the time being. Application level clustering is what
postgresql needs.
What next? which one should we work on? Postgres-R/Usogres/ER-server?
>
> > I guess that's what she meant..
> ^^^
> Correction: "that's what _HE_ meant..." ;)
Argh... Extremely sorry, in India, special nouns ending with 'a' are usually
feminine.. Like Radha..
Sorry again..:-)
ByeShridhar
--
Weiner's Law of Libraries: There are no answers, only cross references.
