Re: Any examples of companies using PG in high volume and/or large scale environs...
От | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Any examples of companies using PG in high volume and/or large scale environs... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050323233623.GD27286@phlogiston.dyndns.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Any examples of companies using PG in high volume and/or large scale environs... (David B <davidb999@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 02:07:03PM -0800, David B wrote: > .info administrator might be dealing with 100 transactions per > hour...or per second. Not seen anything on that. And a few hundred The short answer to this is "both" (I am one of those .info people. Also .org, .in, and a bunch of others). Our databases are several gig on disk (for comparison, < 10G after pg_dump is done). They are by no means very large databases these days -- the entire top-level domain system of the Internet isn't even a very large database these days, given that .com is under 40 million name records. Also, our transaction volume is by no means huge as compared to, say, eBay or Amazon. What we do have is extremely "spikey" load, with some hours of practically nothing followed by occasional periods of hundreds of transactions per second. We have definitely had 10 million transaction days, but I'm pretty sure we've never had a 100 million transaction day in production (we've done tests to those levels, though). We also have not-five-nines SLAs. I will tell you that the users _expectation_ does not conform to the SLAs, and is instead rather closer to five nines than I am happy with. I think this will come as no surprise to anyone who's worked on the operations side of databases. You can find out more about our PostgreSQL use by looking for Afilias on the ICANN web site (icann.org) -- look particularly for bid materials for TLD delegations. We successfully backed the ISOC proposal to take over .org from VeriSign in 2002. If you need more detail, it'd be good to contact me at work (I'm andrew at ca dot afilias dot info there). > statements such as "we have a hugh database". One persons hugh is 1GB > while another's is 100GB while another's is 1TB+. And as one who has > dealt with TB+ in Oracle the issues are way different. Yes. We also have some rather unpleasantly large off-line databases, but nothing yet in the TB-in-one-db range. We are scraping that range, however. In case it helps, we do have one system with absolutely critical financial data in it, which we anticipate will be a TB in not very long. Postgres has performed well for us so far, thanks partly to the team of great DBAs I've been able to assemble. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary and imaginative work need not end up well. --Dennis Ritchie
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: