| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Lewis <mark(dot)lewis(at)mir3(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Haile <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres and Ingres R3 / SAN |
| Date: | 2006-03-07 19:22:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20060307192221.GA82989@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:20:50AM -0800, Mark Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 13:00 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > PostgreSQL on a SAN won't buy you what I think you think it will. It's
> > essentially impossible to safely run two PostgreSQL installs off the
> > same data files without destroying your data. What a SAN can buy you is
> > disk-level replication, but I've no experience with that.
>
> It is possible to run two instances against the same SAN using tools
> such as RedHat's Cluster Suite. We use that in-house as a cheap
> alternative for Oracle clustering, although we're not using it for our
> PostgreSQL servers yet. It's not for load balancing, just
> active/passive fault tolerance.
True, but the OP was talking about scaleability, which is not something
you get with this setup.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-07 19:36:56 | Re: pg_reset_stats + cache I/O % |
| Previous Message | Mark Lewis | 2006-03-07 19:20:50 | Re: Postgres and Ingres R3 / SAN |