<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Brad Nicholson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1268057058.4412.1424.camel@bnicholson-desktop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:58 +0000, John Moran wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Lea <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ian.lea@gmail.com"><ian.lea@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If the slaves are local i.e. LAN rather than WAN and the update volume
is low, it should work OK.
The hardware spec of the slave should be irrelevant, as long as they
can cope with the load.
--
Ian.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Great. Is there hard data available on how well slony-I scales on a
LAN without using cascading?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Not that I am aware of.
It is going to be highly dependant on the write load and speed of
hardware.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Note that the EXPECTATION (based on the design) is that transactional
traffic will approximately rise on a quadratic basis as the number of
slaves increase at the same branch level.<br>
<br>
This PROBABLY doesn't get you in trouble before you reach a half-dozen
to a dozen slaves, roughly, but beyond that, it both can and will.<br>
<br>
There is no particular reason not to use a cascade (or "branched")
structure to control this as the number of replicated nodes increases.<br>
<br>
-- Karl<br>
</body>
</html>