On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 18:10, Ed L. wrote:
> unfortunately, the requirement is 100% uptime all the time, and any
> downtime at all is a liability. Here are some of the issues:
Seems like 100% uptime is always an issue, but not even close to
reality. I think it's unreasonable to expect a single piece of software
that NEVER to be restarted. Never is a really long time.
For this case, isn't replication sufficient? (FWIW, in 1 month I have to
answer this same question). Would this work?
* 'Main' db server up 99.78% of time
* 'Replicant' up 99.78% of time (using slony, dbmirror)
* When Main goes down (crisis, maintenance), Replicant answers for Main,
in a read-only fashion.
* When Main comes back up, any waiting writes can now happen.
* Likewise, Replicant can be taken down for maint, then Main syncs to it
when going back online.
Is this how it's done?
\<.
