From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Best replication solution?
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:35:30 -0400
Message-ID: <20090406123529.GA14675@shinkuro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49D8FA31.8010407@on-track.ca>
References: <49D8FA31.8010407@on-track.ca>
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:36:33AM -0700, Lists wrote:
> *Slony-I* - I've used this in the past, but it's a huge pain to work
> with, caused serious performance issues under heavy load due to long
> running transactions (may not be the case anymore, it's been a while
> since I used it on a large database with many writes), and doesn't seem
> very reliable (I've had replication break on me multiple times).
It is indeed a pain to work with, but I find it hard to believe that
it is the actual source of performance issues. What's more likely
true is that it wasn't tuned to your write load -- that _will_ cause
performance issues. Of course, tuning it is a major pain, as
mentioned. I'm also somewhat puzzled by the claim of unreliability:
most of the actual replication failures I've ever seen under Slony are
due to operator error (these are trivial to induce, alas --
aforementioned pain to work with again). Slony is baroque and
confusing, but it's specifically designed to fail in safe ways (which
is not true of some of the other systems: several of them have modes
in which it's possible to have systems out of sync with each other,
but with no way to detect as much. IMO, that's much worse, so we
designed Slony to fail noisily if it was going to fail at all).
> *Mammoth Replicator* - This is open source now, is it any good? It
> sounds like it's trigger based like Slony. Is it based on Slony, or
> simply use a similar solution?
It's completely unrelated, and it doesn't use triggers. I think the
people programming it are first-rate. Last I looked at it, I felt a
little uncomfortable with certain design choices, which seemed to me
to be a little hacky. They were all on the TODO list, though.
> *SkyTools/Londiste* - Don't know anything special about it.
I've been quite impressed by the usability. It's not quite as
flexible as Slony, but it has the same theory of operation. The
documentation is not as voluminous, although it's also much handier as
reference material than Slony's (which is, in my experience, a little
hard to navigate if you don't already know the system pretty well).
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Subject: Re: Best replication solution?
In-Reply-To: <20090406123529.GA14675@shinkuro.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox