Re: Replication: Slony-I vs. Mammoth Replicator vs. ? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Replication: Slony-I vs. Mammoth Replicator vs. ?
Date
Msg-id 411E3C3B.5060808@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Replication: Slony-I vs. Mammoth Replicator vs. ?  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: Replication: Slony-I vs. Mammoth Replicator vs. ?
List pgsql-performance
>
> Once again, Joshua, would you please explain what you mean with
> "batch" and "live" replication system? Slony does group multiple
> "master" transactions into one replication transaction to improve
> performance (fewer commits on the slaves). The interval of these
> groups is configurable and for high volume DBs it is recommended to
> use about one second, which means that all commits that fall into an
> interval of one second are replicated in one transaction on the slave.
> On normal running systems this results in a replication lag of 600 to
> 800 milliseconds in average. On overloaded systems the asynchronous
> nature of course allows the slaves to fall behind.


Your description above is what I considered batch... you are taking a
"batch" of transactions and replicating them versus each transaction. I
am not saying it is bad in any way. I am just saying it is different
that replicator.

> What is a usual average replication lag of Mammoth Replicator?
>
Obviously it depends on the system, the network connectivity between the
systems etc... In our test systems it takes less than 100 ms to
replicate the data. Again it depends on the size of the transaction (the
data being moved).

> What happens to the other existing slaves when you promote by hand?

This is something that Slony has over replicator. Currently the new
master will force a full dump to the slaves. Of course this is already
on the road map, thanks to Slony :) and should be resolved by months end.

> The Slony documentation is an issue at the moment and the
> administrative tools around it are immature. The replication engine
> itself exceeds my own expectations and performs very robust.
>
I have never suggested otherwise. My only comment about maturity is that
their are actually many companies using replicator in production. We
have already dealt with the 1.0 blues as they say.

I hope you understand that I, in no way have ever suggested (purposely)
anything negative about Slony. Only that I believe they serve different
technical solutions.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>
> Jan
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication: Slony-I vs. Mammoth Replicator vs. ?
Next
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication: Slony-I vs. Mammoth Replicator vs. ?