RE: clustering and/or failover? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jim Buttafuoco
Subject RE: clustering and/or failover?
Date
Msg-id 200108211401.KAA32624@server1.spectrumtelecorp.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to clustering and/or failover?  ("Robert J. Sanford, Jr." <rsanford@nolimitsystems.com>)
List pgsql-general
http://linux-ha.org/ look for heartbeat.


> what software are you running for this? where can i find it?
>
> thanks!
>
> rjsjr
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Jim
> > Buttafuoco
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 6:53 AM
> > To: Robert J. Sanford, Jr.; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] clustering and/or failover?
> >
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > I have been running a "heartbeat" PG database cluster for
> > a year now using a shared SCSI bus.  Yes the heartbeat
> > software has to be careful about when to mount the disk
> > and on what system.   But this seems to work well (I did
> > a lot of testing before putting into production.)  This
> > is a pure master/standby cluster config.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > > thinking in the long-term for my project...
> > >
> > > i'm looking at trying to set up two database servers with
> > > some sort of clustering and/or failover that are talking
> > > to a SAN. is this even feasible using postgres?
> > >
> > > using ms sql server as an example (because that is what
> > > my office is currently using) you can set up two database
> > > servers that will check each other's heartbeat to see if
> > > they are both up. if one goes down then the other takes
> > > over responding to requests. you can also set up a
> > > cluster that will have both machines responding to
> > > requests concurrently.
> > >
> > > with the data set up on a fibre channel raid box you
> > > don't have to worry about replication, you just have to
> > > make sure that the data is properly locked by each of
> > > the servers (in the clustering example) so that no two
> > > machines are updating the same data at the same time.
> > >
> > > i am fairly certain that postgres cannot handle the
> > > first example (heartbeats) but am wondering if it can
> > > handle the second example where two instances are
> > > hitting the same physical data store.
> > >
> > > many thanks!
> > >
> > > rjsjr
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the
> > unregister command
> > >     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to
> > majordomo@postgresql.org)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >
>
>



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Ryan C. Bonham"
Date:
Subject: UPDATE: ERROR: relation_info: Relation 41069 not found
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Sort by foreign date column