On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:23 PM, <snoop@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi everybody, > I'm trying to figure out a way to setup a PostgreSQL HA cluster solution. > > For the record: > - I've already tried pgpool-II 2.x in Synchronous Multi Master Replication > mode and I was satisfied by it's functionality but concerned about having > the same data growing on several nodes What actual concerns did you have? Just a question of too many spinning disks in your machines or something? There are some issues with race conditions and such with statement level replication to be aware of. > - I've upgraded to pgpool-II 3.0.x on FreeBSD (from ports) but it's very > buggy at the moment > - I don't like the idea of having fixed size (16 megs regardless of the > committed transaction number!) WAL logs often "shipped" from one node to > another endangering my network performance (asynchronous replication) Streaming replication in 9.0 doesn't really work that way, so you could use that now with a hot standby ready to be failed over to as needed. > I've done some research and I've an idea of different possible solutions, > but I'd honestly like to implement it using CARP in a "Shared Disk Failover" > fashion. > Unfortunately this doesn't really seem to be a common way according to the > very limited information available on the net and that's why I'm going to > ask here. Yeah, there's a lot of things you have to be careful of to prevent data corruption. If two postgresql instances mount and start on the same data share, you will immediately have a corrupted data store and have to restore from backup. > My idea: two nodes (i386) with FreeBSD 8.1 and PostgreSQL 9.0.2, CARP > providing network failover and a shared data dir on a RAIDZ solution. Only one at a time. Ever. So you'll need fencing software / hardware for your shared data drives. > I'm > pretty sure that CARP would do the job properly indirectly avoiding even the > dangerous writing on the data dir from both nodes at the same time (that > would apparently badly screw up the DB) by redirecting any network > connection to the active DB and to him only. You'll need more than carp. > BUT ... I'm seriously concerned about the already active connections client > <-> server during the failover. > Example: > > client A connects to server A > server A fails so does the client A connection > CARP redirects any upcoming connection to the DB to server B now > client A reconnects and is now operating on server B > THEN > server A comes back up Stop. FULL STOP. If A goes down, you need to STONITH (Shoot the other node in the head) so it cannot under any circumstances come back up on accident. It's a good idea to have either or both fencing for your network switch and a power switch you can use a signal to to power down server A. > Did anyone here try such a configuration by any chance? There are people on the list using multiple machines pointing at single storage arrays with fencing and STONITH technology. I'm not, we just use slony and manual failover for our stuff. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
