Thread: PostgreSQL in mission-critical system
We are currently designing a system for a client, where the database will hold mission-critical information, dealing with money. Needless to say the requirement on the database are very high, particularly regarding data safety and reliability. In production we see that we will probably need a solution with two databases running in the same state. The system architecture will be based on J2EE with a JBoss application server. Any views on the suitability of PostgreSQL for this task? Should we rather go for a commercial solution? Any experience? rgds, Rune
Hi, Because of NDA , I can't say exactly the project I work on, but it is "money" related and currently stores over 60000 transactions totaling several million dollars. PostgreSQL hasn't even blinked, records are always balanced, stability has never been an issue, hell it's even fast ;) [read: fast enough] We are accessing the database using Perl and DBI. Jeff. > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Rune Teigen > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 2:54 PM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL in mission-critical system > > > We are currently designing a system for a client, where the database will > hold mission-critical information, dealing with money. Needless to say the > requirement on the database are very high, particularly regarding data > safety and reliability. In production we see that we will probably need a > solution with two databases running in the same state. > > The system architecture will be based on J2EE with a JBoss application > server. > > Any views on the suitability of PostgreSQL for this task? Should we rather > go for a commercial solution? Any experience? > > rgds, > Rune > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >
I'm using it in a semi-critical application. That is, it holds importat infomation but is not real-time. SO I can fix screw-ups and no one dies. Support is going to be an issue. Either you need to be a long-time PostgreSQL user (I have been from 1994, Remember Postgres-95?) an can fix most problems are find work arounds myself. or find someone you is. PostgreSQL is quite reliable __IF__ (and only if) you test, test, and re-test you application and avoid of work aroundAny problems with ostgresql you run in to. AND you avoid "version upgrade adiction" Pick a Computer and OS that has good "up time" too. I'm a big fan of Solaris/SPARC but others work. Most of the above would apply to Oracle as well --- Rune Teigen <rune.teigen@ikke-tull.vision-consulting.no> wrote: > We are currently designing a system for a client, where the database > will > hold mission-critical information, dealing with money. Needless to > say the > requirement on the database are very high, particularly regarding > data > safety and reliability. In production we see that we will probably > need a > solution with two databases running in the same state. > > The system architecture will be based on J2EE with a JBoss > application > server. > > Any views on the suitability of PostgreSQL for this task? Should we > rather > go for a commercial solution? Any experience? > > rgds, > Rune > > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org ===== Chris Albertson Home: 310-376-1029 chrisalbertson90278@yahoo.com Cell: 310-990-7550 Office: 310-336-5189 Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:10:15AM -0700, Chris Albertson wrote: > Support is going to be an issue. Either you need to be a long-time > PostgreSQL user (I have been from 1994, Remember Postgres-95?) > an can fix most problems are find work arounds myself. or find > someone you is. Not sure why you consider this to be an "issue". If you're running an important app, make sure that you know your stuff, or hire someone who does (e.g. PostgreSQL Inc., Redhat, Commandprompt, SRA, etc.) Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
That's _exactly_ what I said. "Either know the stuff yourself or find someone who does." Maybe I used to many words to say it and obsured the meaning. Funny how when something is so clearly true everyone agrees. --- Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:10:15AM -0700, Chris Albertson wrote: > > Support is going to be an issue. Either you need to be a long-time > > PostgreSQL user (I have been from 1994, Remember Postgres-95?) > > an can fix most problems are find work arounds myself. or find > > someone you is. > > Not sure why you consider this to be an "issue". If you're running > an important app, make sure that you know your stuff, or hire someone > who does (e.g. PostgreSQL Inc., Redhat, Commandprompt, SRA, etc.) > > Cheers, > > Neil > > -- > Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> > PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ===== Chris Albertson Home: 310-376-1029 chrisalbertson90278@yahoo.com Cell: 310-990-7550 Office: 310-336-5189 Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:10:15AM -0700, Chris Albertson wrote:
>
> Support is going to be an issue.
Why? There are several companies that offer commercial support.
Some of their employees are a pretty good bet to understand what the
problems are ;-)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Hello, If this project is as important as it sounds. I strongly suggest a commercial solution. Of course I am going to suggest a Commercial PostgreSQL solution. There are three companies that I suggest. The first is (us), Command Prompt, Inc. we have our own PostgreSQL distribution and we wrote the PostgreSQL book for OReilly. We provide a wide variety of services at can be found on the web at http://www.commandprompt.com/ . We offer guaranteed response, even if you are not yet a customer :) There is PGSQL, Inc. they can be found at http://www.pgsql.com . They are great people, and I have dealt with them in the past. There is also DbExperts, they can be found on the web at http://www.dbexperts.net but they "seem" more focused on product sales than actual support. I don't want this email to sound too much like a sales pitch, I am more interested in the fact that you are choosing PostgreSQL than anything else. However, when your butt is on the line, it is always nice to have someone back you up. Let me know if we can help. Sincerely, Joshua Drake Rune Teigen wrote: >We are currently designing a system for a client, where the database will >hold mission-critical information, dealing with money. Needless to say the >requirement on the database are very high, particularly regarding data >safety and reliability. In production we see that we will probably need a >solution with two databases running in the same state. > >The system architecture will be based on J2EE with a JBoss application >server. > >Any views on the suitability of PostgreSQL for this task? Should we rather >go for a commercial solution? Any experience? > >rgds, >Rune > > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > >
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Chris Albertson wrote: > That's _exactly_ what I said. "Either know the stuff yourself > or find someone who does." Yes -- which is why I'm curious to know why you regard it as an "issue". To me, saying "xxx is an 'issue' when using PostgreSQL" indicates that "xxx" is a weakness or problem that needs to be worked around. There are plenty of people to choose from for commercial support -- thus making it not an "issue". Anyway, it sounds like we agree with one another... Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
As I use the word, I'd say lets identify all the issues you need to build a system you can count on 24x7: 1) You need good hardware AND backup plan for when it does fail 2) You need a source of uninterruptable power and a backup for that too as UPSes fail. 3) You need a connection to the Internet and again a backup. ..... 10) You need a person who can setup and repair screwed up database software...because the software _will_ mess up. They are all just "issues" that need to be addressed For the case of the guy asking the question #10 may be hard as it is pretty clear _he_ has ZERO experiance with PostgreSQL. So he either need to wait 'till he has some or find someone else. The problem is with _him_ using Postgresql not withthe DBMS itself. --- Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Chris Albertson wrote: > > That's _exactly_ what I said. "Either know the stuff yourself > > or find someone who does." > > Yes -- which is why I'm curious to know why you regard it as an > "issue". To me, saying "xxx is an 'issue' when using PostgreSQL" > indicates that "xxx" is a weakness or problem that needs to be > worked around. There are plenty of people to choose from for > commercial support -- thus making it not an "issue". > > Anyway, it sounds like we agree with one another... > > Cheers, > > Neil > > -- > Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> > PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org ===== Chris Albertson Home: 310-376-1029 chrisalbertson90278@yahoo.com Cell: 310-990-7550 Office: 310-336-5189 Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Rune Teigen wrote: > Any views on the suitability of PostgreSQL for this task? Should we rather > go for a commercial solution? Any experience? You should probably go with whatever database you (or your DBA) know best. If you don't know any, PostgreSQL is as good as any. Just make sure you test a lot and go through some simulated disaster scenarios to see just what you need to do to recover. cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
At 06:17 AM 7/13/2002, Curt Sampson wrote: >You should probably go with whatever database you (or your DBA) >know best. If you don't know any, PostgreSQL is as good as any. Actually, I'd say, if you don't know any, PostgreSQL is much better than most. I've installed (or tried to install) these databases on Linux: MySQL PostgreSQL DB2 Oracle 8i I completely failed to get DB2 or Oracle up and running - the system requirements, disk partitions, etc., required are nearly incomprehensible and they don't give you any human-comprehensible documentation. MySQL has a very complicated user/table/permissions system, but very few tuning parameters, so it is very easy to set up. (All its other drawbacks relative to PostgreSQL have already been discussed.) PostgreSQL is relatively easy to set up (the hardest part is setting it up for multiple users and remote access - but that takes only a little while of reading the pg_hba.conf and the createuser command), but probably harder to tune well. So, as Curt says, if you've never run any database on Linux - do yourself a favor and use PostgreSQL if you have any but the most simple requirements (for which MySQL would probably suffice). Also - PostgreSQL on Debian/Woody is super-simple to use: $ apt-get install postgresql postgresql-dev postgresql-clients postgresql-doc $ createdb mytest $ psql mytest and you're off and running. Cheers, Doug
Doug Fields sez: } At 06:17 AM 7/13/2002, Curt Sampson wrote: } >You should probably go with whatever database you (or your DBA) } >know best. If you don't know any, PostgreSQL is as good as any. } } Actually, I'd say, if you don't know any, PostgreSQL is much better than } most. I would agree with that, but... } I've installed (or tried to install) these databases on Linux: } } MySQL } PostgreSQL } DB2 } Oracle 8i } } I completely failed to get DB2 or Oracle up and running - the system } requirements, disk partitions, etc., required are nearly incomprehensible } and they don't give you any human-comprehensible documentation. ...I would disagree with that statement. I haven't tried Oracle, but DB2 7.1 was a pleasure to run on Linux, and only a little hard to install because it comes as an rpm and I was using a Debian system. It was slightly harder to deal with on Solaris, but that had more to do with installing it on a single system in a large cluster with NIS and NFS running rather than installing it on a standalone server. The documentation was, in general, clear and once I set up a directory with reasonably named symlinks to the PDF files on the CD (which followed the 8.3 naming scheme), it was easy to learn what I needed to know. The biggest problem I had was that the Java implementation I was using on Linux had issues (all images and icons, though not widgets and menus, were missing their red component) with displaying on X on one of the video cards on the Sun I was using as my workstation. } MySQL has a very complicated user/table/permissions system, but very few } tuning parameters, so it is very easy to set up. (All its other drawbacks } relative to PostgreSQL have already been discussed.) I installed MySQL on my MacOS X box with ease, got it running, and rejected it based on its lack of support for views, stored procedures, and foreign key constraints within a week. } PostgreSQL is relatively easy to set up (the hardest part is setting it up } for multiple users and remote access - but that takes only a little while } of reading the pg_hba.conf and the createuser command), but probably harder } to tune well. The only hardship PostgreSQL gave me was that the documentation for external functions failed to cover MacOS X, therefore I spent a ridiculous amount of time figuring out which flags to give the linker to produce a library the postmaster could load. } So, as Curt says, if you've never run any database on Linux - do yourself a } favor and use PostgreSQL if you have any but the most simple requirements } (for which MySQL would probably suffice). } } Also - PostgreSQL on Debian/Woody is super-simple to use: } } $ apt-get install postgresql postgresql-dev postgresql-clients } postgresql-doc } $ createdb mytest } $ psql mytest I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in versions in their stable tree. (Hrm, actually, is Woody the unstable tree? If so, it's worth being clear, and even redundant, about that.) The package in the stable tree is version 6.5.3. The unstable tree has 7.2.1, which is much better. } and you're off and running. } Cheers, } Doug --Greg
>} Also - PostgreSQL on Debian/Woody is super-simple to use: >} >} $ apt-get install postgresql postgresql-dev postgresql-clients >} postgresql-doc >} $ createdb mytest >} $ psql mytest > >I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in >versions in their stable tree. (Hrm, actually, is Woody the unstable tree? Woody is the current "testing" branch, and has been frozen since the beginning of May pending final release. The only updates that have happened have been security related, just as in the stable release. It is running 7.2.1 in the Woody release. Frankly, I've been running the "testing" distribution since September and it works great. Cheers, Doug
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 11:15:02AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in
> versions in their stable tree.
While it's true that Debian doesn't tend to have the latest and
greatest in stable (even right at the time stable comes out), the
PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to
release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So
the notoriety is not justified in this case. And one might argue
that the strong stability of Debian's stable release is a _reason_
to prefer it for servers.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 11:15:02AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote: > > >>I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in >>versions in their stable tree. >> > > While it's true that Debian doesn't tend to have the latest and > greatest in stable (even right at the time stable comes out), the > PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to > release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So > the notoriety is not justified in this case. I'm puzzled by that comment. Stable has 6.5.3 right now. The maintainer is great, I agree, but it's just not Debian policy to keep stable updated, beyond needed security fixes. So seems to me Gregory Seidman was right. Unless you consider 6.5.3 up-to-date. In fact, I'll bet a lot of Debian PostgreSQL users are running the 'testing' version, or compiled a newer version of PostgreSQL from source.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to
> > release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So
>
> I'm puzzled by that comment. Stable has 6.5.3 right now. The
Sorry, I should have been clearer. You need to visit Mr Elphick's
page to get it:
<http://people.debian.org/~elphick/postgresql/index.html>
Debian's policy is very clear that a new version of a package cannot
go into frozen (or statble) after the freeze. Backported bugfixes
can be introduced (I get the impression that a few exceptions have
been made for some packages, but it seems pretty rare), but not new
versions. Some package maintainers (Mr Elphick and the X package
maintainers among them) are willing to provide unofficial upgrade
packages for the stable branch, however.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 19:39, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote: > > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > > PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to > > > release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So > > > > I'm puzzled by that comment. Stable has 6.5.3 right now. The > > Sorry, I should have been clearer. You need to visit Mr Elphick's > page to get it: > > <http://people.debian.org/~elphick/postgresql/index.html> > > Debian's policy is very clear that a new version of a package cannot > go into frozen (or statble) after the freeze. Backported bugfixes > can be introduced (I get the impression that a few exceptions have > been made for some packages, but it seems pretty rare), but not new > versions. Some package maintainers (Mr Elphick and the X package > maintainers among them) are willing to provide unofficial upgrade > packages for the stable branch, however. Regrettably, I am not as up-to-date as you believe. The main reason is that the package doesn't build without changes on potato and I am too short of time to do anything about it. Besides that, we're all waiting for woody to become the new stable release - we've been holding our breath since 1st May :-( and I'm not keen to put effort into something that's almost dead. Lastly, anyone that cares about keeping up-to-date will probably be running woody anyway. -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:19
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 01:33:06AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Regrettably, I am not as up-to-date as you believe. The main reason is
> that the package doesn't build without changes on potato and I am too
> short of time to do anything about it. Besides that, we're all waiting
> for woody to become the new stable release - we've been holding our
Well, that'll teach me to speak without looking at a web site (I'm
running woody, so I haven't exactly been paying attention). Still ,
you did release packages for 7.0.x and 7.1.x, so the claim that one
is stuck witg 6.5.x under Debian stable is still not fair.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110