> True, but running several dozen instances on a single machine will
> require a lot more memory (or, conversely, each individual database gets
> a lot less memory to use).
>
> Of course, this is all hand-waving right now... it'd be interesting to
> see which approach was actually better.
I'm running 4 WAL logging standby clusters on a single machine. While
the load on the master servers occasionally goes up to >60, the load on
the standby machine have never climbed above 5.
Of course when the master servers are all loaded, the standby gets
behind with the recovery... but eventually it gets up to date again.
I would be very surprised if it would get less behind if I would use it
in the 1 by 1 scenario.
Cheers,
Csaba.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
