Received: from localhost (pluto.hub.org [200.46.204.4]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134E39FA374 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:57:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.4]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39348-09 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:57:01 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from bugaboo.mu (ns1.bugaboo.mu [213.133.111.57]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB039FA372 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:57:03 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.77.20] (p54BD8921.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [::ffff:84.189.137.33]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 markus@bluegap.ch) by bugaboo.mu with esmtp; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:06:39 +0100 id 008EF80B.4561FCBF.00001C66 Message-ID: <4561FCBD.6050900@bluegap.ch> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:06:37 +0100 From: Markus Schiltknecht User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: a.mitani@sra-europe.com CC: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, pgcluster-general@pgfoundry.org, bruce@momjian.us Subject: Re: [Pgcluster-general] PostgreSQL Documentation of High Availability References: <45617CFA.7050603@bluegap.ch> <39022.194.26.187.1.1164038087.squirrel@82.192.72.130> <4561D534.1050502@bluegap.ch> <52419.194.26.187.1.1164041161.squirrel@82.192.72.130> In-Reply-To: <52419.194.26.187.1.1164041161.squirrel@82.192.72.130> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/43 X-Sequence-Number: 3877 Hi, a.mitani@sra-europe.com wrote: > I believe that shared-everything and shared-disk are cmpletely different > things. No. AFAIK, shared everything is basically a marketing term. Some vendors (especially Oracle) use it to mean 'shared disk', which is really confusing. But that's probably intentional, as it sounds good to share everything... much better than sharing nothing. Others, like GreenPlum use the term to mean 'shared memory' for example in [1], which is much more appropriate. Anyway, the term 'Shared Nothing' seems to go back to Stonebraker's paper 'The Case for Shared Nothing Architecture' [2]. There he defined these three terms: shared memory (SM): multiple processors share a common central memory shared disk (SD): multiple processors each with private memory share a common collection of disks shared nothing (SN): neither memory nor peripheral storage is shared among processors As it makes no sense to have shared memory but individual disks, no term for such a thing got defined. > Oracle has said the RAC as Shared-Everything. > Probably, the definition of the words would differ from them. It's hard to find architectural details within their documents, but AFAICS, they do something like distributed shared memory or distributed locking, which they call "Cache Fusion", see [3]. In the very same paper, they define what a Cluster is for them: "A cluster is a group of independent servers that cooperate as a single system. The primary cluster components are processor nodes, a cluster interconnect, and a shared disk subsystem. The clusters share disk access and resources that manage data, but the distinct hardware cluster nodes do not share memory." Thus, Oracle RAC seems to be a shared disk solution. Only in conjunction with their OCFS, you could probably call it a shared-nothing solution, but it's certainly not a shared-memory thing. I'd vote for explaining these terms in the PostgreSQL documentation, as there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding these terms. Regards Markus [1]: GreenPlum about Shared Nothing vs Shared Everything: http://www.greenplum.com/products/sharedNothing.php [2]: Michael Stonebraker, The Case for Shared Nothing Architecture: http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/hpts85-nothing.pdf [3]: A random Oracle Paper about "Cache Fusion" (tm): http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/oracle9i/pdf/cache_fusion_rel2.pdf