IMO this is not true. You can get affordable 10GBit network adapters, so you can have plenty of bandwith in a db server
pool(if they are located in the same area). Even 1GBit Ethernet greatly helps here, and would make it possible to
balanceread-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.
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 :-).)
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
"When the grammar checker identifies an error, it suggests a
correction and can even makes some changes for you."
-- Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0 User's Guide, p.35:
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
