Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF504650020 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:12:47 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45151-08 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:12:45 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.238]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEF664FED7 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:12:45 -0400 (AST) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so283635rvf.43 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:12:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Jb2eArtRIe6Z2N+z2F98wgA8ooCKSoRSJmKW6ZXvhBc=; b=qaY3E7k9Ww7+LIONoo7cPKaO7kCnGWyABH2+AaNsqLxfzoLmU2Q0YrYhdOfZlmYPMx puNewRXBGKwbmyLjTHBT+C24Q4V4FPQX5+hgcQj8Zep5OGBtocjfEljrr8+yFDg079PL QNUwVDjiGPYvtUk/cEuT5iNFOqjADUXlmiKkU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=V7mQEq6snh/eT0Igk2j5eQjE4BlN3ZVb6M9/cuSdTkTTdZIcDoKTR6dg8WwduMZ6sF wGawLYiq2qz5TC7Vsa/TRokG6vdYbFvtEO8qZtSfHnchPOikfPO7kvPXyiSNitvkhoi9 RfqiJIgIPqjm1WWqkK3j3ELN2MOqUk3d6C3Xs= Received: by 10.140.126.14 with SMTP id y14mr2766826rvc.4.1227676364203; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.248.12 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:12:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:12:44 -0700 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Jamie Tufnell" Subject: Re: Best option for expanding beyond 1 pg server in this situation Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200811/146 X-Sequence-Number: 30800 On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Jamie Tufnell wrote: > Hi, > > We have been wanting to HA our pgsql server for some time now. We're > actually reaching the limits of our current server now, so there is a > pressing need to do something to ease the load too. > > There are several individual solutions to both of these problems. I > was hoping I could get some advice from someone more experienced > though, about what the simplest most effective way of moving forward > would be? Hopefully I can squash both HA and LB with the same > solution. > > So far I've narrowed it down to > > Slony-I master/slave replication with failover We use this where I work and it works quite well. We have some custom scripts that detect failure of the master db and initiates failover to the slave if necessary. We do this from the applicaiton level. > pgpool-II with heartbeat for failover. The pgpool-II configuration > matrix (http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/) isn't terribly clear > (there's no legend) but it leads me to believe failover and load > balancing are mutually exclusive options. Is that so? Seems to be. I haven't played with pgpool in a long time so don't take my word as authoritative.