Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ron Johnson
Subject Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array)
Date
Msg-id 464476D7.8050105@cox.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array)  (Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net>)
Responses Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array)
Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array)
List pgsql-general
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/11/07 08:31, Geoffrey wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 05/11/07 07:32, Geoffrey wrote:
>>> John Gateley wrote:
>>>> Sorry if this is a FAQ, I did search and couldn't find much.
>>>>
>>>> I need to make my Postgresql installation fault tolerant.
>>>> I was imagining a RAIDed disk array that is accessible from two
>>>> (or multiple) computers, with a postmaster running on each computer.
>>>> (Hardware upgrades could then be done to each computer at different
>>>> times without losing access to the database).
>>> We are doing this, more or less.  We use the RH cluster suite on two
>>> machines that share a common data silo.  Basically, if one machine
>>> fails, the other fires up a postmaster and picks up where the other left
>>> off.
>>>
>>> That's real simple description because we actually have an active/active
>>> configuration with multiple postmasters running on each machine. Machine
>>> A is the active machine for databases 1-3 and machine B is the active
>>> machine for databases 4-6.   If machine A fails, postmasters are fired
>>> up on machine B to attend to databases 1-3.
>>
>> That's still not a cluster in the traditional sense.
>>
>> On a cluster-aware OS and RDBMS (like Rdb/VMS and Oracle RAC, which
>> imperfectly got it's technology from VMS), all the databases would
>> be open on both nodes and they would share locking over a (usually
>> dedicated, and used-to-be-proprietary) network link.
>
> Regardless of what you want to call it, it certainly seems to reflect a
> solution the user might consider.  I don't believe I called it a
> cluster.  I stated we were using software called the 'cluster suite.'

Call me elitist, but I've used OpenVMS for so long that if it's not
a VMS-style shared-disk cluster, it's a false usage of the word.

Compute-clusters excluded, of course.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGRHbXS9HxQb37XmcRAg04AKC5btWR3CVebNM2HbMQG+6IeiSZqQCfRMst
RkulQKSefuR04O6D/3xlbaY=
=7cNv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Sorin N. Ciolofan"
Date:
Subject: increasing of the shared memory does not solve the problem of "OUT of shared memory"
Next
From: Geoffrey
Date:
Subject: Re: Fault Tolerant Postgresql (two machines, two postmasters, one disk array)