On 1/16/2012 4:13 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
On 1/16/2012 4:09 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 01/16/12 2:04 PM, Tim Uckun wrote:
I realize that. Eventually we might have to go to physical machines
but for now we are using virtual servers and I have to make it work
within that structure.
quite the catch-22. a single well built dedicated server likely would be
MORE reliable than a cluster of two virtual servers, and a lot less
complicated. C'est la vie.
I wonder. If its a write heavy database, I totally agree with you. But
if its mostly read-only, and mostly fits in ram, then a pgpool of
servers should be faster.
Be nice to know the usage patterns of this database. (and size).
-Andy
crap. ignore me. You used "reliable" and "complicated", and I used
"faster". I really should read things more closely.
-Andy
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
