Message-ID: <45637E3C.7010707@bluegap.ch>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:31:24 +0100
From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061116)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
CC: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, a.mitani@sra-europe.com,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, pgcluster-general@pgfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [Pgcluster-general] PostgreSQL Documentation of
References: <200611212151.kALLpgp06112@momjian.us>
	<1164146273.24113.157.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1164146273.24113.157.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

Have them share all their memory is the challenge, though. Ask IBM, they 
certainly do big-irons like that.

As I said, it's like a super-computer, but you can also see it as a 
cluster of CPUs with shared memory and shared disks. It's all just a 
matter of your point of view.

Regards

Markus