Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: clustering with shared storage

From: Rosser Schwarz <rosser(dot)schwarz(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: amador alvarez <aalvarez(at)d2(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: clustering with shared storage
Date: 2012-03-20 20:55:02
Message-ID: CAFnxYwhDH2YARMS9_9BuVy8ML8--AB+KHg=v6eBdVy0vyJUuZQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM, amador alvarez <aalvarez(at)d2(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder why are you considering this solution, as if something wrong comes
> within the data (logical corruption, user error) it will be spread on both
> locations, Would not be better a delayed standby database.

That's a risk, to be sure. That's why you also keep backups (such as a
PITR slave).  If you're doing HA without also doing backups, you're
Doing It Wrong.

The benefit of Shared Storage clustering is immediate availability if
your "primary" node goes down for some reason.  You simply fence off
the downed node, mount the shared volume, and bring up the db on the
secondary node.  I've used commercial solutions that manage all this,
and reliably have the DB back in service in tens of seconds, at the
outside.

rls

-- 
:wq

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Gordon ShannonDate: 2012-03-20 21:02:31
Subject: New role can connect to all dbs with no grants
Previous:From: Devrim GÜNDÜZDate: 2012-03-20 20:53:45
Subject: Re: clustering with shared storage

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group