On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 14:12, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:59:52AM -0700, Will LaShell wrote:
> > What problems have people been having getting rserv to work at all?
>
> In 2001 I tested it for our anticipated load. It worked for me, but
> it was not up to the kind of load that we were anticipating. It was
> reasonable, however, and I was not able to break it; it just wasn't
> up to the load I had to plan for. We also needed multi-salve
> replication. We therefore did some work with PostgreSQL, Inc. to
> produce a new, somewhat better version of rserv. That's what we
> still use in our production systems.
>
> So I have not had problems getting rserv to work, but it wasn't
> enough for us. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to others,
> though: the strategy is sound, and if it meets your needs, it'll
> probably do fine (assuming it still works with 7.3; when I was
> testing, remember, 7.1.x was the released version). I seem to recall
> keeping it busy with several hundred transactions per minute, but
> whether that was sustainable I don't know.
>
> A
I definitely agree with this analysis. The biggest thing with getting
rserv to work fast, is using the right replication field id. We elected
to use a bigint, created an index only on it and treat it special. If I
get inspired I could post up some performance metrics if anyone cares to
be interested.
I have looked at eRserv in the past, the problem is the price. It's just
a bit high to convince the people here to use. Hopefully I can get them
to change their minds.
Sincerely,
Will LaShell