Re: high availability

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: high availability
Date: 2003-04-16 11:23:36
Message-ID: 20030416112336.GB18951@libertyrms.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 06:43:48PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
> i'm pondering a startup right now which will have some rather stringent
> requirements for high availability, and one of the issues that's on my mind
> is how to upgrade a high availability postgresql server farm. does anyone
> have any thoughts/experience on this?

Define "high availability".

The first thing you need is an OS and hardware that can support hot
plugging of all the hardware, &c. Plus you need ultra-reliable
hardware in the first place.

Then, use one of the replication systems on offer to make sure
you have a second (and probably third) database.

If you want automated failover, PostgreSQL, Inc. say they'll sell you
something which can do it. I am suspicious of the assumptions behind
the approach, but I haven;t investigated it deeply.

If what you want is 100% guaranteed uptime with no interruptions for
maintenance, I don't really think Postgres can do it yet.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tony Grant 2003-04-16 11:40:56 will an honest French ISP please stand up
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2003-04-16 09:35:57 Re: Disk usage

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Patrick Welche 2003-04-16 11:44:52 Re: [INTERFACES] First draft of new FE/BE protocol spec posted for comments
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2003-04-16 09:16:54 Re: Are we losing momentum?