From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array) |
Date: | 2007-05-11 13:59:51 |
Message-ID: | 464476D7.8050105@cox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/11/07 08:31, Geoffrey wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 05/11/07 07:32, Geoffrey wrote:
>>> John Gateley wrote:
>>>> Sorry if this is a FAQ, I did search and couldn't find much.
>>>>
>>>> I need to make my Postgresql installation fault tolerant.
>>>> I was imagining a RAIDed disk array that is accessible from two
>>>> (or multiple) computers, with a postmaster running on each computer.
>>>> (Hardware upgrades could then be done to each computer at different
>>>> times without losing access to the database).
>>> We are doing this, more or less. We use the RH cluster suite on two
>>> machines that share a common data silo. Basically, if one machine
>>> fails, the other fires up a postmaster and picks up where the other left
>>> off.
>>>
>>> That's real simple description because we actually have an active/active
>>> configuration with multiple postmasters running on each machine. Machine
>>> A is the active machine for databases 1-3 and machine B is the active
>>> machine for databases 4-6. If machine A fails, postmasters are fired
>>> up on machine B to attend to databases 1-3.
>>
>> That's still not a cluster in the traditional sense.
>>
>> On a cluster-aware OS and RDBMS (like Rdb/VMS and Oracle RAC, which
>> imperfectly got it's technology from VMS), all the databases would
>> be open on both nodes and they would share locking over a (usually
>> dedicated, and used-to-be-proprietary) network link.
>
> Regardless of what you want to call it, it certainly seems to reflect a
> solution the user might consider. I don't believe I called it a
> cluster. I stated we were using software called the 'cluster suite.'
Call me elitist, but I've used OpenVMS for so long that if it's not
a VMS-style shared-disk cluster, it's a false usage of the word.
Compute-clusters excluded, of course.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGRHbXS9HxQb37XmcRAg04AKC5btWR3CVebNM2HbMQG+6IeiSZqQCfRMst
RkulQKSefuR04O6D/3xlbaY=
=7cNv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Geoffrey | 2007-05-11 14:20:30 | Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array) |
Previous Message | Sorin N. Ciolofan | 2007-05-11 13:58:28 | increasing of the shared memory does not solve the problem of "OUT of shared memory" |