Re: RAID0 and pg_xlog

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: Qingqing Zhuo <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RAID0 and pg_xlog
Date: 2005-09-09 23:54:16
Message-ID: 20050909235416.GR7630@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:20:21PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > pgpool is a connection pool; it has (almost) nothing to do with
> > replication. It certainly doesn't work to provide any kind of data
> > security on a RAID0 setup.
> >
> > I'm not arguing against anything people have suggested, only pointing
> > out that if you're using RAID0 your data is not safe against a drive
> > failure, except possible using pgcluster (some would argue that
> > statement-based replication isn't as reliable as log-based).
>
> Um. No. It has a synchronous replication mode, which I've used, and it
> works quite well.
>
> Look it up, it's pretty cool. Writes to both pg machines synchronously,
> reads from them load balanced. Of course, there are some limits imposed
> by this methodology, re: things like random() and such.
>
> Now, if you're arguing against statement based replication, that I can
> understand. but pgpool can definitely do two box sync replication.

Oh, I didn't realize that. Though I have to wonder why they duplicated
what pgcluster provides...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2005-09-09 23:55:22 Re: RAID0 and pg_xlog
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-09-09 23:50:51 Re: SQL - planet redundant data