On 12/6/2005 11:23 AM, Mario Weilguni wrote:
IMO this is not true. You can get affordable 10GBit network adapters, so you
can have plenty of bandwith in a db server pool (if they are located in the
same area). Even 1GBit Ethernet greatly helps here, and would make it possible
to balance read-intensive (and not write intensive) applications. We using
linux bonding interface with 2 gbit NICs, and 200 MBytes/sec throughput is
something you need to have a quite some harddisks to reach that. Latency is not
bad too.
It's not so much the bandwidth but more the roundtrips that limit your
maximum transaction throughput. Remember, whatever the priority, you
can't increase the speed of light.
Jan
Regards,
Mario weilguni
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Browne
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:43 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication on the backend
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gustavo Tonini) writes:
But, wouldn't the performance be better? And wouldn't asynchronous
messages be better processed?
Why do you think performance would be materially affected by this?
The MAJOR performance bottleneck is normally the slow network
connection between servers.
When looked at in the perspective of that bottleneck, pretty much
everything else is just noise. (Sometimes pretty loud noise, but
still noise :-).)
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
