Re: Geographical redundancy

From: Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
To: Dennis <aiwa_azca(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Geographical redundancy
Date: 2006-12-29 07:11:47
Message-ID: 464F58DE-3E1A-482C-B99A-1E880498F04B@silentmedia.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Sure, there are lots of ways. Factors that start constraining things
are:

- do both sites have to be online (making changes to the data) at the
same time?
- how tightly do both sites have to stay in sync?
- is data loss acceptable if one site suffers a disaster?
- what platform are you running on?
- how much throughput latency do you have between sites?
- how much downtime is acceptable in switching sites?

On Dec 26, 2006, at 11:41 PM, Dennis wrote:

> Is there any feasible way to achieve geographical redundancy of
> postgresql database?
>
> Say you have a website which uses PG on the backend to read/write
> data and you want to have the website running on 2 separate servers
> distributed geographically and have the data synchronize somehow
> over the internet.
>
> In case one data center fails, website is still up and running from
> 2nd geographical location (from say 2nd DNS server).
>
> Thank you.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message A. Kretschmer 2006-12-29 07:24:06 Re: Date
Previous Message Reece Hart 2006-12-29 05:03:49 Re: select union with table name