X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEEB54530 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 04:55:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58493-10 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 07:55:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailbox.samurai.com (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818FE54A1D for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 04:55:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCCE18CDAE; Wed, 11 May 2005 03:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbox.samurai.com ([205.207.28.82]) by localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 99825-01-8; Wed, 11 May 2005 03:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [61.88.101.19] (unknown [61.88.101.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8296918CD58; Wed, 11 May 2005 03:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4281BA5E.9060508@samurai.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:55:10 +1000 From: Neil Conway User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Berkus Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Partitioning / Clustering References: <5F94B6EB-3925-4CD3-A67F-4310890B438A@advfn.com> <428177E5.4030704@commandprompt.com> <42818C7A.7020207@samurai.com> <200505102144.07254.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <200505102144.07254.josh@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailbox.samurai.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.023 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/192 X-Sequence-Number: 12356 Josh Berkus wrote: > 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 Yeah, that's a pretty significant problem. > a server going down is liable to take the whole cluster down. That's news to me. Do you have more information on this? -Neil