Received: from tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts7.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.40]) by hub.org (8.10.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e9GLebW31750 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:40:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from karkalis@earthling.net) Received: from killer ([64.229.48.150]) by tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20001016214036.GJVM1583.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@killer>; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:40:36 -0400 Message-ID: <00f301c037b9$fe6938c0$0382a8c0@metavera.com> From: "Tony Simopoulos" To: "Clark, Joel" Cc: References: <69F195289743D411B428009027E293C401290E73@CLTEXCH1> Subject: Re: 2 computers 1hd 2 postgres daemons. Is it possible? Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:42:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Archive-Number: 200010/133 X-Sequence-Number: 1490 > Through an NFS mount maybe? without a "distributed lock manager" sharing cannot be done efficiently. NFS creates problems both desired features of this set-up. 1) High Availability if the computer that is serving the NFS mount goes down, any other machine using the "share" goes down as well -- i.e. single-point of failure 2) Load Balancing NFS is extremely expensive. all that would be balanced is the database logic; in place sorting, connection overheads, etc. expensive reads and writes will all hit the NFS mounting server -- i.e. single-threading every query to the disk i/o of one machine. tonys. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Simopoulos [mailto:karkalis@earthling.net] > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 3:03 PM > To: Oscar Serrano > Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] 2 computers 1hd 2 postgres daemons. Is it > possible? > > > a redundant, replicated, or parallel system (choose whichever adjective > befits your desires) is being developed. check out > http://www.erserver.com/. > > sharing a single disk is an O/S & hardware problem. what is your intended > platform? > > good luck, > > tonys. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Oscar Serrano > To: Postgres interfaces > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 2:15 PM > Subject: [INTERFACES] 2 computers 1hd 2 postgres daemons. Is it possible? > > > > Hi men :-) > > Just one question for those of you who have spent many time with postgres. > > I want to create a load balancing and High Availability system with two > > servers. > > This two server have a common hard disk: A RAID 5 server connected to them > > by the LAN. > > I have a hardware machine (WSD+ from RADWARE) that manages the load > > balancing. > > I want to have, two servers, and two postgres installations, one in each > > server, but with a common PGDATA directory in the RAID. > > So, if one of the servers crashes, people can still get the information > from > > the other server. > > Esentially, what I want is, two postgres (one in each machine) with a > shared > > PGDATA directory, and that both postgres can access and do Inserts in the > > tables, and when one postgres does an insert, the second sees what the > first > > has inserted. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > >