On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 11:13, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
> > Since PG doesn't have active-active clustering, that's out, but since
> > the database will be very static, why not have, say 8 machines, each
> > with it's own copy of the database?  (Since there are so few updates,
> > you feed the updates to a litle Perl app that then makes the changes
> > on each machine.)  (A round-robin load balancer would do the trick
> > in utilizing them all.)
> Another approach I've seen work is to have several servers connect to one SAN 
> or NAS where the data lives.  Only one server is enabled to handle "write" 
> requests; all the rest are read-only.  This does mean having dispacting 
> middleware that parcels out requests among the servers, but works very well 
> for the java-based company that's using it.

Wouldn't the cache on the read-only databases get out of sync with
the true on-disk data?

| Ron Johnson, Jr.        Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]             |
| Jefferson, LA  USA                                              |
|                                                                 |
| "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian  |
|  because I hate vegetables!"                                    |
|    unknown                                                      |

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to