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

Re: Cluster/Replication

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Sean Brown" <sbrown(at)eaglepress(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cluster/Replication
Date: 2007-10-19 18:30:10
Message-ID: dcc563d10710191130i6f1fbea3n9f09ac46b977e9b6@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
On 10/19/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:43:40 -0400
> Sean Brown <sbrown(at)eaglepress(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I believe this has come up before, and I am still researching how to
> > do this and figured asking was probably a good idea as hopefully I
> > can either get some direction or someone can point me at something I
> > haven't seen yet.
>
> Why do you have a synchronous requirement?

He said something about losing any data due to the loss of the master
being unacceptable, so synchronous was the only way to go.

But if the machines are separated by any real distance, the speed /
latency of the link will be the deciding factor in the write
performance of the whole system.

I think they might be better off having a local synchronous clustering
solution (i.e. two machines running in failover on shared storage or
something) and then async rep cross country if there's any distance to
the other server.  What to do about slony not handling LOBs I don't
know.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2007-10-19 19:05:12
Subject: Re: Cluster/Replication
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2007-10-19 18:05:37
Subject: Re: Trigger AFTER UPDATE OR INSERT

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