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

Re: Pg/CyberCluster test results

From: RW <postgres(at)tauceti(dot)net>
To: CG <cgg007(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pg/CyberCluster test results
Date: 2008-08-22 13:52:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
I hoped that it would be easier to get the nodes back in sync
but it seems that all Postgres Multi-Master solutions are not
reliable at the moment. I've planed to test CyberCluster
this weekend but I already suspected that this rsync solutions
have some shortcomings. Sniff...

It seems that we have to wait for PGCluster-II which isn't a
"shared nothing" solution. Instead all files are on a shared
medium like SAN or iSCSI and all instances uses this medium
(similar to Oracle).


CG wrote:
> I've been testing Cybercluster (which is a modified PgCluster) ... I have two back-end databases, one load balancer, and one replicator. I've been testing failover and rebuilding a degraded cluster, and I'm finidng that it is REALLY easy for the two back-ends to get out of sync with each other. This is very disturbing. I was wondering if anyone has experience with solving this problem.

In response to


pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: RWDate: 2008-08-22 14:06:15
Subject: Re: Pg/CyberCluster test results
Previous:From: CGDate: 2008-08-22 13:33:50
Subject: Pg/CyberCluster test results

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group