| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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: | 2009-03-03 02:22:22 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10903021822j25e8b667qb76993c11eef39dd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Serge Fonville
<serge(dot)fonville(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks all for the responses,
>>
>> We're very happy with pgpool-II for load-balancing and multi-master
>>
>> usage of PostgreSQL (keep in mind to enable HA for pgpool-II itself to
>>
>> avoid a SPOF, e.g. with heartbeat).
>
> I could not determine whether pgpool-II is suitable for what I want.
> It does not seem to support multimaster in the fashion I had in mind, based
> on the information on the website it looks like it does not support full
> CRUD on any node.
So, what design criteria are you using that says multi-master is a
better choice than master / slave? I know that multi-master is
buzzword compliant, but often the actual product you get with it isn't
any better, and in some cases worse, than a master / slave setup.
> The most suitable solution seems to be LVS for a shared IP, ldirectord for
> load balancing and cybercluster for the database
> replication/synchronization.
Again, this is a lot of work to avoid master / slave with failover.
Are you sure it's really needed for your situation?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-03-03 02:23:41 | Re: how to use pg_dump to dump tables whose owner is me |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-03-03 01:47:21 | Re: php4 and postgresql 8.3 |