http://people.planetpostgresql.org/xzilla/index.php?/archives/326-Solving-the-big-science-checklist.html
There are many parties involved, and i am trying to figure out what configuration would be ideal for ours.
On Nov 29, 2007 3:20 PM, Geoffrey <
lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Willy-Bas Loos wrote:I think you need to better identify what you're trying to do. I can
> I'll take that as a "no".
> What i mean is to actually run exactly one cluster (no replicated copy) on
> more than one server. Of course, if that were possible, why would people
> bother with replication..
>
> I guess it is irrational to suggest that it would be possible, since each
> server would at least need to have it's own copy of the DBMS software etc,
> or it would cease to be a separate server.
think of a couple of different solutions based on the limited info
provided. You've already said you don't want replication.
We have a scenario where we have a data silo that is shared between two
servers, so the data exist in one place. To make things simple, if one
server fails, the postmasters running on that server are started on the
other server. This is a hot/hot fail over implementation as we have
multiple postmasters running.
You could implement a hot/warm fail over solution if you're running a
single postmaster.
Finally, you might be thinking of something like a beowulf cluster where
multiple machines function as a single machine. I can't help you with
that scenario as I don't have any experience with it and postgresql.
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
