From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Subject: Re: Partitioning / Clustering
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:44:06 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <5F94B6EB-3925-4CD3-A67F-4310890B438A@advfn.com>
	<428177E5.4030704@commandprompt.com> <42818C7A.7020207@samurai.com>
In-Reply-To: <42818C7A.7020207@samurai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200505102144.07254.josh@agliodbs.com>

Neil,

> Sure, but that hardly makes it not "usable". Considering the price of
> RAM these days, having enough RAM to hold the database (distributed over
> the entire cluster) is perfectly acceptable for quite a few people.

The other problem, as I was told it at OSCON, was that these were not 
high-availability clusters; it's impossible to add a server to an existing 
cluster, and a server going down is liable to take the whole cluster down.  
Mind you, I've not tried that aspect of it myself; once I saw the ram-only 
rule, we switched to something else.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco