4 ms·
Vertical scaling like this will have quite a few physical limits, eg max cores (is it 64?). I would think that they may be fast approaching these limits?. For a
by gdgdgdgbgfff 6y ago
Vertical scaling like this will have quite a few physical limits, eg max cores (is it 64?). I would think that they may be fast approaching these limits?. For a an scalable enterprise solution would it not be better, and also more cost-efficient, to horizontally scale. Shard the tables over many nodes.
- jnwatson 6y agoYou can buy boxes with 30x more RAM without going super boutique. You can buy quad-socket server motherboards, so you can have 64x4 cores. For the vast majority of businesses, vertical scaling is quite feasible.
- noir_lord 6y ago128x4 (EPYC 7000 series go up to 128) assuming you can get a 4 socket board.
- gdgdgdgbgfff 6y agoI thought 64 cores was a limit coming from Postgres http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how-about-64.html http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how-abo...
- darksaints 6y agoI would think it is a bit higher now, as this benchmark is for a pretty old version that's not even supported anymore. In particular, I'm pretty sure that shared memory throughput is a major factor for scaling the number of cores, and there have been quite a few changes to the shared memory subsystem since then. But even then, there probably are some significant overheads that are reached before you get to the limits of single node systems that are available today.
- kasey_junk 6y agoThat’s a 10 year old restriction. At least as of Postgres 9.2 you could run more than 64 cores (though Postgres didn’t always use them effectively).