From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200611212245.kALMj9N18522@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [Pgcluster-general] PostgreSQL Documentation of
In-Reply-To: <1164146273.24113.157.camel@localhost.localdomain>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:45:09 -0500 (EST)
CC: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>, a.mitani@sra-europe.com,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, pgcluster-general@pgfoundry.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I feel the shared-* issue splits us up like master/slave and
> > > > multi-master splits up
> > > 
> > > No, not quite. To sum up, I'd say the following combinations make sense:
> > > 
> > > sync, multi-master replication on shared-memory cluster (which is much 
> > > like a super-computer. With shared memory distributing locks does not 
> > > cost much - beside marketing, there is probably not much sense in 
> > > calling this a cluster at all).
> > 
> > Wow, how is that different than an multi-CPU server?
> 
> You can't have 1000 cpus :).. You can have 1000 dual core servers.

But does anyone make a shared-memory cluster that can do 1000 cpu's? 
Sounds like Sequent, but I didn't think anyone was doing this anymore.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +