From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Lazaro Ruben Garcia Martinez <lgarciam(at)estudiantes(dot)uci(dot)cu> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgresql cluster on SAN |
Date: | 2010-09-09 03:10:58 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinV+hX5moXd0c-ML+G9jyjzLGtHf92Y03AKC4M6@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Lazaro Ruben Garcia Martinez
<lgarciam(at)estudiantes(dot)uci(dot)cu> wrote:
> Thank you very much for your answer, In the cluster that i said before I
> need only failover.
> In the documentation of postgresql I read about the Shared Disk Failover,
> this tecnique avoids synchronization overhead by having only one copy of the
> database. It uses a single disk array that is shared by multiple servers. If
> the main database server fails, the standby server is able to mount and
> start the database as though it was recovering from a database crash. This
> allows rapid failover with no data loss. One disadvantage is that the
> standby server should never access the shared storage while the primary
> server is running.
>
> For these resons is posible to use a SAN?
Yes, however, a SAN is not a replacement for some kind of streaming
replication in case you need to recover a database to a previous
uncorrupted state or should the SAN fail in some catastrophic way.
You need to look up "fencing" for your servers.
--
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-09-09 03:32:37 | Re: postgresql cluster on SAN |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2010-09-09 03:10:17 | Re: postgresql cluster on SAN |