Re: Postgres Clustering Options

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres Clustering Options
Date: 2009-11-11 18:11:52
Message-ID: 4AFAFE68.60104@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

David Kerr wrote:
> Postgres installed on a Cluster configured in active/passive (both pointing to the same SAN
> (If PG or the OS fails we trigger a failover to the passive node)
> Log shipping between that cluster and a single PG Instance off site.
> Is this a common/reccomended method of handling clusterin with Postgres? google searches
> basically point to using a replication based solution, which i don't think would meet my
> performance demands.
>
The part I'm having trouble with here is how it is you expect to keep a
remote node up to date with log-shipping, but then reject log-shipping
based replication as not high enough performance for you? The classic
problem with log-shipping in PostgreSQL is that you've got a single
recovery process trying to replay the work of what many workers did on
the master, and that can turn into a potential lag problem as volume
spikes upwards. If you don't expect a standby is going to be able to
keep up with your volume due to that issue, the remote one is going to
be even worse though.

--
Greg Smith greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Kerr 2009-11-11 18:13:05 Re: Postgres Clustering Options
Previous Message Greg Smith 2009-11-11 18:05:58 Re: Postgres Clustering Options