Philippe Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>1. slon processes = 50 clusters x 2 nodes = 100 processes >> >>There will be... hmmm... I think... 4 threads apiece, so the process >>table would report 400 slon processes >> >> 2. Each of those threads will open at least one database >> connection. Those servicing subscriptions (there will be 50 of >> these) will open two >>connections. >> >>That would mean 450 connections, ergo 450 postmaster backends. >> >>Unfortunately, yes, that will add up to rather a lot of processes :-( >> >> > Hi, > > I think it will be worse, because each server would host a total of > 100 databases (50 "master" > + 50 "slave" databases) : > - Server "A" will be the master node for 50 databases, and "B" their > slave node. > - Server "B" will be the master node for 50 other databases, and "A" > their slave node.
That pretty well doubles each number... > Do you think it's a viable setup ? Probably not. A way around this "explosion" of replication management would be to join databases together. Rather than having 50 databases, each with one schema/namespace, you might put them into one database with 50 schemas/namespaces. That would not require many clusters/slon processes. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.sailifa.ac" "@" "enworbbc")) <http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/> Christopher Browne (416) 673-4124 (land) _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
