atom feed16 messages in org.postgresql.pgsql-generalRe: [GENERAL] High Availability with ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Elior SolimanJun 20, 2010 9:33 am 
David FetterJun 20, 2010 10:36 am 
Raymond O'DonnellJun 20, 2010 10:37 am 
Craig RingerJun 20, 2010 10:43 am 
John R PierceJun 20, 2010 12:07 pm 
Yaroslav TykhiyJun 20, 2010 7:28 pm 
Dimitri FontaineJun 21, 2010 12:22 pm 
John R PierceJun 21, 2010 12:38 pm 
Greg SmithJun 21, 2010 8:08 pm 
John R PierceJun 21, 2010 10:24 pm 
Devrim GÜNDÜZJun 21, 2010 10:35 pm 
Dimitri FontaineJun 22, 2010 1:57 am 
Greg SmithJun 22, 2010 6:44 am 
John R PierceJun 22, 2010 12:04 pm 
Dimitri FontaineJun 23, 2010 1:43 am 
Craig RingerJun 23, 2010 8:32 am 
Subject:Re: [GENERAL] High Availability with Postgres
From:Dimitri Fontaine (dfon@hi-media.com)
Date:Jun 21, 2010 12:22:34 pm
List:org.postgresql.pgsql-general

John R Pierce <pie@hogranch.com> writes:

Two DB servers will be using a common external storage (with raid).

This is also one of the only postgres HA configurations that won't lose /any/ committed transactions on a failure. Most all PITR/WAL replication/Slony/etc configs, the standby storage runs several seconds behind realtime.

I'm not clear on what error case it protects against, though. Either the data is ok and a single PostgreSQL system will restart fine, or the data isn't and you're hosed the same with or without the second system.

What's left is hardware failure that didn't compromise the data. I didn't see much hardware failure yet, granted, but I'm yet to see a motherboard, some RAM or a RAID controller failing in a way that leaves behind data you can trust.

So my question would be, what case do you handle better with a shared external storage compared to shared nothing servers with some sort of replication (including WAL shipping)?

Regards,