| From: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres Clustering Options |
| Date: | 2009-11-11 18:19:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20091111181908.GC24600@mr-paradox.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:35:35AM -0800, Ben Chobot wrote:
- What are you trying to protect against? Software failure? Hardware
- failure? Both?
-
- Depending on your budget, you could theoretically point any number of
- failover nodes at a san, so long as you make sure only one of them is
- running postgres at a time. Of course, you still have the single point
- of failure in the SAN. If you aren't made of money and are running
- linux, we've found DRBD is a great way to cluster two machines and it
- avoids a few single points of failure. But you limit yourself to two or
- three cluster nodes.
Protecting against both hardware and software failure.
SAN failure would be handled by the offsite node, but we've got a pretty robust
SAN, (I don't have all of the details) so it may even not have a single point
of failure.
We tried out DRBD and the performance impact was pretty sigificant. our
app is very sensitive to any performance hitch so I just can't see any
form of replication working for us.
Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-11-11 18:35:58 | Re: Postgres Clustering Options |
| Previous Message | David Kerr | 2009-11-11 18:16:34 | Re: Postgres Clustering Options |