OK, well accepting data loss (even if it is "just" 6-12 hours worth)
really opens up a lot of possibilities...... EXCEPT that you also said you
want both sites to be able to modify data. Again, there is no real
multi-master replication available for postgres, so you'll have to have
both sites at least write to the same database server.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Dennis wrote:
Well, I am mainly concerned with catastrophic failure. If 1st (main)
datacenter fails majorly (say fire, earthquake, db server dies etc), I
need to be able to restore websites/data quickly in another location. If
I get a data loss of say 6-12 hours during a major failure (which should
never occur), I am ok with that.
Ben <bench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Dennis wrote:
I was thinking of maybe just having 2nd location receive a PG dump (full
or incremental) every so often (an hour to 6 hours) and if the main
location fails majorly, restore the PG cluster from the dump and switch
DNS settings on the actual sites. I can make sure all website files are
always in sync on both locations.
Well, first off, you can just rsync your archived WAL files. That may be
easier than playing with pg_dump:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/continuous-archiving.html
But second, and more important given your data-loss desires, if you do it
this way you have a window where you can experience data loss.
Specifically, after a transaction is committed, that commit will be at
risk until the next transfer has completed.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
