Brad Nicholson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:58 +0000, John Moran wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Lea <ian.lea at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> Great. Is there hard data available on how well slony-I scales on a
>> LAN without using cascading?
>>
>>     
>
> Not that I am aware of. 
>
> It is going to be highly dependant on the write load and speed of
> hardware.
>
>   
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.

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.

There is no particular reason not to use a cascade (or "branched") 
structure to control this as the number of replicated nodes increases.

-- Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20100308/9432ae24/attachment.htm