To: josh@agliodbs.com,
 "David Roussel" <pgsql-performance@diroussel.xsmail.com>
Cc: "Alex Stapleton" <alexs@advfn.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning / Clustering
References: <5F94B6EB-3925-4CD3-A67F-4310890B438A@advfn.com>
	<1115798277.29223.233869472@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<200505111013.52067.josh@agliodbs.com>
Message-ID: <op.sqmuc2nnth1vuj@localhost>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 00:35:16 +0200
From: PFC <lists@boutiquenumerique.com>
Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?La_Boutique_Num=E9rique?=
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1115798277.29223.233869472@webmail.messagingengine.com>
User-Agent: Opera M2(BETA2)/8.0 (Linux, build 987)


> However, memcached (and for us, pg_memcached) is an excellent way to  
> improve
> horizontal scalability by taking disposable data (like session  
> information)
> out of the database and putting it in protected RAM.

	So, what is the advantage of such a system versus, say, a "sticky  
sessions" system where each session is assigned to ONE application server  
(not PHP then) which keeps it in RAM as native objects instead of  
serializing and deserializing it on each request ?
	I'd say the sticky sessions should perform a lot better, and if one  
machine dies, only the sessions on this one are lost.
	But of course you can't do it with PHP as you need an app server which  
can manage sessions. Potentially the savings are huge, though.

	On Google, their distributed system spans a huge number of PCs and it has  
redundancy, ie. individual PC failure is a normal thing and is a part of  
the system, it is handled gracefully. I read a paper on this matter, it's  
pretty impressive. The google filesystem has nothing to do with databases  
though, it's more a massive data store / streaming storage.