From: | Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, anibal(dot)acosta(at)edge(dot)com(dot)py |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-admin] Daily digest v1.3327 (2 messages) |
Date: | 2010-09-26 00:04:31 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinrJB1+q=En0Jw2ekUTeGFubFFzCcyDXxFP=0Tt@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> So, you have everything running and working in aprox. 10 seconds.
>
> All of the Windows Server stuff via Microsoft Cluster Services I'm aware of does its shared storage node fencing via sending specific SCSI calls (PERSISTENT RESERVE) to the >storage. That probably works fine if you have a Fiber Channel array that supports that. But I don't think there's any flexibility for alternative types of deployments. As for the complexity >of the setup time, while they have put a bunch of GUIs on it I've never see anything that tries to do complicated storage array arrangements work in any time that isn't measure in large >multiples of hours, so "10 seconds" I'm skeptical of.
I think the 10 seconds here is referring to the time to automatically
failover to a secondary node in the cluster. I have worked extensively
in production environments with MS Cluster Server providing failover
for IIS, SQL Server and Apache HTTPD / Subversion, for older SCSI3 and
Fibre Channel arrays. In all cases, failover time - time for a client
to reconnect - was under 30s.
I am guessing that PostgreSQL would behave reasonably well in a MS
Cluster. I've thought about setting up a scenario to play with the
idea but haven't had a compelling reason to do so.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Rostron | 2010-09-26 00:41:09 | xid wraparound |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-09-25 03:29:28 | Re: question about HA in PG 9.0 |