From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Serge Fonville <serge(dot)fonville(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering with DRBD |
Date: | 2009-02-11 11:26:22 |
Message-ID: | 4992B5DE.6070301@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Serge Fonville wrote:
> Can PostgreSQL use DRBD as its storage?
Yes, many deployments use this.
> Since the in-memory database would be synchronized with the on-disk
> database.
> If this would be done with every query, this would greatly impact
> performance.
Performance with DRBD is usually acceptable, but you should test this
yourself in your setup.
> Since the cluster will be multi-master/dual-primary, do I need to have a
> separate block device for each PostgreSQL instance or can it use the
> DRBD device?
I don't understand how you want to have a multimaster PostgreSQL setup
with DRBD. DRBD can only be used for an inactive standby.
> I read mostly about MySQL clustering with DRBD and there the query cache
> should be disabled to make sure data is in-sync.
> To me it seems something similar would apply to PostgreSQL.
no
> I believe cybercluster is the most active and complete PostgreSQL
> clustering solution.
> My endgoal is a two node cluster with load sharing and fail over where
> both nodes can perform reads and writes.
That's not going to happen very easily, if at all.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Serge Fonville | 2009-02-11 11:52:10 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering with DRBD |
Previous Message | Leif B. Kristensen | 2009-02-11 10:35:54 | Re: Difference between Windows pgsql and Linux pgsql? |