Brendam,
We started testing Sequoia last week, and it reached our expectatives
of High Availability and Load Balance. We still need to verify if the
performance is not so degradated due to multiple clusters updating.
What is the difference between Sequoia and p/cluster? I mean, the
latter is a commercial solution offered by Continuent, the same
producer of Sequoia.
Our applications are based on JBoss, connecting to a PostgreSQL via
JDBC. One of the greatest features we found on Sequoia is the URL
style:
"jdbc:sequoia://first_node:port,second_node:port/database"
When a Sequoia Controller is down (eg: first_node), the JDBC tries
another one (ie, second_node), and it occurs transparently to the
application! The JDBC Driver handles it all alone! I don't know if
with a pure PostgreSQL JDBC Driver and the Slony I + Heartbeat joint
solution the application would perform the same behavior...
2005/12/3, Brendan Duddridge <brendan@clickspace.com>:
> Hello Rodrigo,
>
> Have you (or anyone else on this list) had great success with
> Sequoia? I've been reading a bit about it. It looks like it might
> work for us for a high-availability solution. Do you think it's just
> as good as using p/cluster? We're deploying to Mac OS X Server and it
> looks like p/cluster only supports Linux on x86.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | brendan@clickspace.com
>
> ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
> Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
> Calgary, AB T2G 0V9
>
> http://www.clickspace.com
Regards,
Rodrigo Hjort
http://www.pr.gov.br
