On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM, ram<[email protected]> wrote: > I am supposed to implement some database replication , in order to have a > real time data backup. > I tried out pgpool in a test environment and benchmarking with pgbench I > realized that the time for inserts would grow by an average 100% with > pgpool.
I have two clusters running two PostgreSQL servers each with 1 active pgpool-II instance, all of them on Debian Lenny x86_64. On both I have the same performance: inserts are twice as slow and selects are twice as fast. I have load_balance and replication, of course. As far as I know, it's the way it is if you want: 1. Sync cluster (i.e. transactions are commited once they are okay in both nodes). It's not a master-slave configuration in which only the master has the really good data and slave is always left behind a bit. 2. Load balance: select queries are balanced between the nodes, therefore you get 1*num_of_nodes speed boost. If you want to have fast inserts, you can't have a sync cluster, you need to have a master-slave cluster. And you won't have load balance advantages. In my case, we do very few inserts and a lot of selects, hence it's good for us. But it's not okay for all cases. People requiring a master-slave configuration use Slony-I, I think (not really sure as I have never used it), or binary log shipping (the native solution of PostgreSQL, which just got improved in 8.4 version). -- Jaume Sabater http://linuxsilo.net/ "Ubi sapientas ibi libertas" _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
