| From: | akshay polji <akshay(dot)polji(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | HA Setup Review |
| Date: | 2024-04-30 07:40:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAHecRenM5M9G3mmbE5srhUso0MFC-g6F5rVjwrXo_vZ7fvEt9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Hello Team,
I am looking for some feedback on the HA Setup that we are finalizing for
running our business critical workloads.
We are planning to follow this Setup,
https://www.pgpool.net/docs/42/en/html/example-cluster.html
- Basically a 3 node PostgreSQL Cluster, running 3 processes i.e.
PostgreSQL DB, PGPool and WatchDog.
- These 3 nodes will be distributed across 3 availability zones/data
centers for resilience and use a synchronous replication between
Primary and Stand-by.
- Synchronous option will be Any One, so that the DB availability is not
impacted if 1 Stand-by is down for even planned outage i.e. Patching of DB
or Virtual Machine.
We see a lot of benefits of this setup in terms of availability and
managing less infrastructure v/s setting up separate machines for PGPool.
However, I wanted to know if there are any Cons/Downsides of this setup and
any suggestion to improve this setup.
Any views would be highly appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Akshay
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| image.png | image/png | 131.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | alexander al (leiden) | 2024-04-30 08:04:21 | AWS RDS postgresql upgrade from 14 to 15 |
| Previous Message | Priancka Chatz | 2024-04-29 14:23:42 | Re: Pgbouncer connection timed out |