Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9909F9454 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:29:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81807-04 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:29:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mir3-fs.mir3.com (mail.mir3.com [65.208.188.100]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01AC9F936B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:29:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: MIR3-FS.mir3.com 172.16.1.11 from 172.16.2.68 172.16.2.68 via HTTP with MS-WebStorage 6.0.6249 Received: from archimedes by MIR3-FS.mir3.com; 06 Sep 2007 11:29:20 -0700 Subject: Re: SAN vs Internal Disks From: Mark Lewis To: Harsh Azad Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: <1189089521.6161.53.camel@archimedes> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: MIR3, Inc. Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:29:20 -0700 Message-Id: <1189103360.6161.68.camel@archimedes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/91 X-Sequence-Number: 26636 On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 22:28 +0530, Harsh Azad wrote: > Thanks Mark. > > If I replicate a snapshot of Data and log files (basically the entire > PG data directory) and I maintain same version of postgres on both > servers, it should work right? > > I am also thinking that having SAN storage will provide me with > facility of keeping a warm standby DB. By just shutting one server > down and starting the other mounting the same File system I should be > able to bing my DB up when the primary inccurs a physical failure. > > I'm only considering SAN storage for this feature - has anyone ever > used SAN for replication and warm standy-by on Postgres? > > Regards, > Harsh We used to use a SAN for warm standby of a database, but with Oracle and not PG. It worked kinda sorta, except for occasional crashes due to buggy drivers. But after going through the exercise, we realized that we hadn't gained anything over just doing master/slave replication between two servers, except that it was more expensive, had a tendency to expose buggy drivers, had a single point of failure in the SAN array, failover took longer and we couldn't use the warm standby server to perform read-only queries. So we reverted back and just used the SAN as expensive DAS and set up a separate box for DB replication. So if that's the only reason you're considering a SAN, then I'd advise you to spend the extra money on more DAS disks. Maybe I'm jaded by past experiences, but the only real use case I can see to justify a SAN for a database would be something like Oracle RAC, but I'm not aware of any PG equivalent to that. -- Mark Lewis