Message-ID: <48AEC7D7.4020501@tauceti.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:06:15 +0200
From: RW <postgres@tauceti.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Pg/CyberCluster test results
References: <767392.31997.qm@web37902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<48AEC4A7.6050508@tauceti.net>
In-Reply-To: <48AEC4A7.6050508@tauceti.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Maybe some people haven't read this site here:

http://www.postgresqldocs.org/wiki/Replication,_Clustering,_and_Connection_Pooling

It gives a nice overview. Another interesting project which isn't
production ready yet is Postgres-R (http://www.postgres-r.org/)

Robert


RW wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>>      
>>   
>
>