thank you for your detailed answer.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Not sure if you were around when we wrote this chapter but there was a
> lot of good discussion to get it to where it is now.
Uh.. IIRC quite a good part of the discussion for chapter 23 was between
you and me, pretty exactly a year ago. Or what discussion are you
>> First of all, I don't quite like the negated formulations. I can see
>> that you want a dot to mark a positive feature, but I find it hard to
> Well, the idea is to say "what things do I want and what offers it?" If
> you have positive/negative it makes it harder to do that. I realize it
> is confusing in a different way. We could split out the negatives into
> a different table but that seems worse.
Hm.. yeah, I can understand that. As those are thing the user wants, I
think we could formulate positive wishes. Just a proposal:
No special hardware required: works with commodity hardware
No conflict resolution necessary: maintains durability property
master failure will never lose data: maintains durability
on single node failure
With the other two I'm unsure.. I see it's very hard to find helpful
>> I'm especially puzzled about is the "master never locks others". All
>> first four, namely "shared disk failover", "file system replication",
>> "warm standby" and "master slave replication", block others (the slaves)
>> completely, which is about the worst kind of lock.
> That item assumes you have slaves that are trying to do work.
Yes, replication in general assumes that. So does high availability,
IMO. Having read-only slaves means nothing else but locking them from
> The point
> is that multi-master slows down the other slaves in a way no other
> option does,
Uh.. you mean the other masters? But according to that statement, "async
multi-master replication" as well as "statement-based replication
middleware" should not have a dot, because those as well slow down other
masters. In the async case at different points in time, yes, but all
master have to write the data, which slows them down.
I'm suspecting you are rather talking about the network dependent commit
latency of eager replication solutions. I find the term "locking delay"
for that rather confusing. How about: "normal commit latency"? (Normal,
as in: depends on the storage system used, instead of on the network and
> which is the reason we don't support it yet.
Uhm.. PgCluster *is* a synchronous multi-master replication solution. It
also is a middleware and it does statement based replication. Which dots
of the matrix do you think apply for it?
>> Comparing between "File System Replication" and "Shared Disk Failover",
>> you state that the former has "master server overhead", while the later
>> doesn't. Seen solely from the single server node, this might be true.
>> But summarized over the cluster, you have a network with a quite similar
>> load in both cases. I wouldn't say one has less overhead than the other
>> per definition.
> The point is that file system replication has to wait for the standby
> server to write the blocks, while disk failover does not.
In "disk failover", the master has to wait for the NAS to write the
blocks on mirrored disks, while in "file system replication" the master
has to wait for multiple nodes to write the blocks. As the nodes of a
replicated file system can write in parallel, very much like a RAID-1
NAS, I don't see that much of a difference there.
> I don't think
> the network is an issue considering many use NAS anyway.
I think you are comparing an enterprise NAS to a low-cost, commodity
hardware clustered filesystem. Take the same amount of money and the
same number of mirrors and you'll get comparable performance.
> There is no dot there so I am saying "statement based replication
> solution" requires conflict resolution. Agreed you could do it without
> conflict resolution and it is kind of independent. How should we deal
> with this?
Maybe a third state: 'n/a'?
>> And in the special case of (async, but eager) Postgres-R also to "async
>> multi-master replication" and "no conflict resolution necessary".
>> Although I can understand that that's a pretty nifty difference.
> Yea, the table isn't going to be 100% but tries to summarize what in the
> section above.
> Right, but the point of the chart is go give people guidance, not to
> give them details; that is in the part above.
Well, sure. But then we are back at the discussion of the parts above,
which is quite fuzzy, IMO. I'm still missing those details. And I'm
dubious about it being a basis for a feature matrix with clear dots or
no dots. For the reasons explained above.
>> IMO, "data partitioning" is entirely perpendicular to replication. It
>> can be combined, in various ways. There's horizontal and vertical
>> partitioning, eager/lazy and single-/multi-master replication. I guess
>> we could find a use case for most of the combinations thereof. (Kudos
>> for finding a combination which definitely has no use case).
> Really? Are you saying the office example is useless? What is a good
> use case for this?
Uhm, no sorry, I was unclear here. And not even correct. I was trying to
say that there's a use case for each and every combination of the three
I'm now revoking one: "master-slave" combines very badly with "eager
replication". Because if you do eager replication, you can as well have
multiple masters without any additional cost. So, only these three
combinations make sense:
- lazy, master-slave
- eager, master-slave
- eager, multi-master
Now, no partitioning, horizontal as well as vertical partitioning can be
combined with any of the above replication method. Giving a total of
nine combinations, which all make perfect sense for certain applications.
If I understand correctly, your office example is about horizontal data
partitioning, with lazy, master-slave replication for the read-only copy
of the remote data. It makes perfect sense.
With regard to replication, there's another feature I think would be
worth mentioning: dynamic addition or removal of nodes (masters or
slaves). But that's solely implementation dependent, so it probably
doesn't fit into the matrix.
Another interesting property I'm missing is the existence of single
points of failures.
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-11-11 14:28:24|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Contrib docs v1|
|Previous:||From: Albert Cervera i Areny||Date: 2007-11-11 13:10:27|
|Subject: Re: Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Radoslaw Zielinski||Date: 2007-11-11 13:45:39|
|Subject: Beta2 "horology" test failure on non-US zoneinfo/posixrules|
|Previous:||From: James Mansion||Date: 2007-11-11 11:55:28|
|Subject: Re: Win32 shared memory speed|