| From: | RW <postgres(at)tauceti(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | CG <cgg007(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Pg/CyberCluster test results |
| Date: | 2008-08-22 13:52:39 |
| Message-ID: | 48AEC4A7.6050508@tauceti.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
I hoped that it would be easier to get the nodes back in sync
but it seems that all Postgres Multi-Master solutions are not
reliable at the moment. I've planed to test CyberCluster
this weekend but I already suspected that this rsync solutions
have some shortcomings. Sniff...
It seems that we have to wait for PGCluster-II which isn't a
"shared nothing" solution. Instead all files are on a shared
medium like SAN or iSCSI and all instances uses this medium
(similar to Oracle).
Robert
CG wrote:
> I've been testing Cybercluster (which is a modified PgCluster) ... I have two back-end databases, one load balancer, and one replicator. I've been testing failover and rebuilding a degraded cluster, and I'm finidng that it is REALLY easy for the two back-ends to get out of sync with each other. This is very disturbing. I was wondering if anyone has experience with solving this problem.
>
>
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | RW | 2008-08-22 14:06:15 | Re: Pg/CyberCluster test results |
| Previous Message | CG | 2008-08-22 13:33:50 | Pg/CyberCluster test results |