X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9929FA5BE for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:53:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27397-02 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:53:35 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426D29FA13E for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:53:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from collaborativefusion.com (mx01.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.201]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:53:34 -0400 id 0005641D.44919E9E.000119E8 Received: from Internal Mail-Server by mx01 (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Jun 2006 13:45:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:53:33 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Dan Harris Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Is it possible to start two instances of postgresql? Message-Id: <20060615135333.1997750e.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <44919625.8040200@drivefaster.net> References: <44911706.60204@superlativ.dk> <44919625.8040200@drivefaster.net> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.6 (GTK+ 2.8.19; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/318 X-Sequence-Number: 19675 In response to Dan Harris : > > > kah_hang_ang@toray.com.my wrote: > > > >> both of the two database are live but use for two different web app. > >> my company don't want to spend more to buy a new server, so then I think of > >> to implement both under the same server and one instance.. > > Just as an anecdote, I am running 30 databases on a single instance and > it's working quite well. There may be reasons to run multiple > instances but it seems like tuning them to cooperate for memory would > pose some problems - e.g. effective_cache_size. The only reason I can see for doing this is when you need to run two different versions of PostgreSQL. Which is what I've been forced to do on one of our servers. It works, but it's a pain to admin. If you can just put all the databases in one db cluster (is that terminology still correct?) it'll be much easier. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.