| From: | Karim Nassar <Karim(dot)Nassar(at)NAU(dot)EDU> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 24x7x365 high-volume ops ideas |
| Date: | 2004-11-04 02:51:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1099536696.4813.186.camel@denali.cse.nau.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 18:10, Ed L. wrote:
> unfortunately, the requirement is 100% uptime all the time, and any
> downtime at all is a liability. Here are some of the issues:
Seems like 100% uptime is always an issue, but not even close to
reality. I think it's unreasonable to expect a single piece of software
that NEVER to be restarted. Never is a really long time.
For this case, isn't replication sufficient? (FWIW, in 1 month I have to
answer this same question). Would this work?
* 'Main' db server up 99.78% of time
* 'Replicant' up 99.78% of time (using slony, dbmirror)
* When Main goes down (crisis, maintenance), Replicant answers for Main,
in a read-only fashion.
* When Main comes back up, any waiting writes can now happen.
* Likewise, Replicant can be taken down for maint, then Main syncs to it
when going back online.
Is this how it's done?
\<.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Edmund Lian | 2004-11-04 04:24:55 | UTF-8 and =, LIKE problems |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2004-11-04 01:35:46 | Re: 24x7x365 high-volume ops ideas |