On 12/6/2005 11:23 AM, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> IMO this is not true. You can get affordable 10GBit network adapters, so you can have plenty of bandwith in a db
serverpool (if they are located in the same area). Even 1GBit Ethernet greatly helps here, and would make it possible
tobalance read-intensive (and not write intensive) applications. We using linux bonding interface with 2 gbit NICs, and
200MBytes/sec throughput is something you need to have a quite some harddisks to reach that. Latency is not bad too.
It's not so much the bandwidth but more the roundtrips that limit your
maximum transaction throughput. Remember, whatever the priority, you
can't increase the speed of light.
Jan
>
> Regards,
> Mario weilguni
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Chris Browne
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:43 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication on the backend
>
> gustavotonini@gmail.com (Gustavo Tonini) writes:
>> But, wouldn't the performance be better? And wouldn't asynchronous
>> messages be better processed?
>
> Why do you think performance would be materially affected by this?
>
> The MAJOR performance bottleneck is normally the slow network
> connection between servers.
>
> When looked at in the perspective of that bottleneck, pretty much
> everything else is just noise. (Sometimes pretty loud noise, but
> still noise :-).)
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
