> > In-memory storage:
> > All data stored in each data node is kept in memory on the node's
> > host computer. For each data node in the cluster, you must have
> > available an amount of RAM equal to the size of the database times
> > the number of replicas,
>
> This refers to the first line: "In-memory storage". Of course you can't
> do that with 160GB DBs. You can still cluster - look at DRBD
> http://www.drbd.org/
I guess the relevant point for this thread is that I don't necessarily think
that this is the silver bullet as implied. Even if you use a
high-availability clustering technology that can mirror writes and reads, you
are STILL dealing with the possibility of a database that is just massive.
Processing this size of database will still be disk-bound unless you have an
unheard-of amount of memory; I don't think there's any reason to think that
clustering the problem will make it go away.
So I still wonder if anyone has any musings on my earlier questions?
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
