Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ddZL3-0001A0-Sa for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:56:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ddZL3-0006Gb-89 for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:56:13 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ddZJE-0001vW-Lu for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:54:20 +0000 Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.1]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ddZJA-0002pf-FA for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:54:20 +0000 Received: from firost (unknown [77.153.244.219]) (Authenticated sender: ioguix) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0ACADB0057F; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:54:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:54:08 +0200 From: "Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais" To: Purav Chovatia Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgres HA using Shared Disk Solution Message-ID: <20170804115408.5962105b@firost> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:30:24 +0530 Purav Chovatia wrote: > Hello All, > > I have been researching for possible HA solutions for postgres. I find > shared disk solution (either using Linux-HA or RHCS) to be a very good > solution. Especially for us, because our databases are big and they do a > lot of IO so we deploy a lot of disks. > > However, research on the internet shows that a shared disk solution is not > very commonly deployed when it comes to postgres. People mostly go for > Streaming Replication/Warm/Hot-Standby which to me are more like DR > solutions. > > Is my research correct or that is not so? for e.g. this was the only post > that I came across, and that too as old as 2012: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4F68E989.7080101%40d2.com > > Given our IO requirement, if we go for Streaming Replication instead, then > our storage needs double and that increases the cost. > > Can someone confirm, if shared disk clustering is fairly common or no in > the postgres world? If no, why is it so - can somebody enlighten me pls. Shared disk is totally fine. It just requires a warm node useless for day-to-day usage compare to HA on a streaming replication architecture where the standby can be involved as a RO node. Just make sure that: * your SAN does not allow more than one server at a time to access the data * you are able to fence the other node or its access to the disk * extensive failover scenarios has been tested * all required documentation has been written on your side to manage the cluster As a bonus, make sure to use Pacemaker, with a recent distro (RHEL 7, CentOS 7, Debian 9). Regards, -- Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais Dalibo -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin