Message-ID: <48AEC4A7.6050508@tauceti.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:52:39 +0200
From: RW <postgres@tauceti.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CG <cgg007@yahoo.com>
CC: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Pg/CyberCluster test results
References: <767392.31997.qm@web37902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <767392.31997.qm@web37902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I hoped that it would be easier to get the nodes back in sync
but it seems that all Postgres Multi-Master solutions are not
reliable at the moment. I've planed to test CyberCluster
this weekend but I already suspected that this rsync solutions
have some shortcomings. Sniff...

It seems that we have to wait for PGCluster-II which isn't a
"shared nothing" solution. Instead all files are on a shared
medium like SAN or iSCSI and all instances uses this medium
(similar to Oracle).

Robert

CG wrote:
> I've been testing Cybercluster (which is a modified PgCluster) ... I have two back-end databases, one load balancer, and one replicator. I've been testing failover and rebuilding a degraded cluster, and I'm finidng that it is REALLY easy for the two back-ends to get out of sync with each other. This is very disturbing. I was wondering if anyone has experience with solving this problem.
>
>
>       
>
>