Is there anyone, preferably a Sequoia project team member, that can assist me with this question? We have 10 application servers that are going to be connected to 2 postgres database servers via Sequoia controllers and I would like to know if I need to have more than two controllers. I am interested in hearing arguments for or against having multiple controllers. Is it better for performance, scalability, are there known issues/reasons for not having more than two,etc. Please reply as we need to work on our implementation plan. All help/comments are appreciated.
Thanks, Bo ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bo Glenn Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sequoia] using multiple controllers I would like to know if there is a benefit from using more than two controllers. We currently have enough hardware to have 4 controllers with 1 controller per physical machine (4 servers). Our application is mutli-threaded and does a large number of write and read transactions. Does it make sense to have more than two physical machines running one controller each? Is there a performance gain for having more than two controllers for example 4 controllers to spread the communication to the backend database servers for JDBC transactions? I have researched the archives and the documentation and I cannot see an argument for or against using more than two controllers like the basic setup uses. It would be great to know if we should leverage our hardware or if we just need two controllers. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Thanks, Bo
_______________________________________________ Sequoia mailing list [email protected] https://forge.continuent.org/mailman/listinfo/sequoia
