Re: Multiple servers with Postgresql
От | Pascal Heraud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Multiple servers with Postgresql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50603518.2080702@tatm.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Multiple servers with Postgresql (Cliff Pratt <enkiduonthenet@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
Hello, In this case, the use of slony1 is the recommended one. Pascal. On 09/24/12 02:45, Cliff Pratt wrote: > Oops, my apologies. I replied to you and not the list. I'm copying the > list on this one, John. > > I don't think that you will be able to mix systems like you want to. > Replication between systems is only natively supported in 9.x of > PostgreSQL, though replication could be done in earlier versions with > an add-on. In addition, I don't know if 32 and 64 bit systems can > replicate. You may be able to create a backup of a 9.1 system on 8.4 > by dump and restore, provided you don't implement any facilities that > are in 9.1 and not in 8.4, but you would have to write scripts to do > it. > > The issue with replication that exists in 9.x is that if you switch to > the backup system and make updates to it, then you are faced with a > dump and restore to switch back again (in the majority of cases, as I > understand it). > > Sorry, tuning is a black art to me, but I'm sure that you could find a > suitable PostgreSQL person in your location! I'm not a PostgreSQL > expert, though I've used PostgreSQL for years. > > Cheers, > > Cliff > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:54 PM, John Coryat <coryat@gmail.com> wrote: >> Cliff, >> >> Thanks for the clarification. >> >> I'm looking to implement hot spare on 9.1 (64 bit) and warm spare on 8.4 (32 >> bit). >> >> What I would like to know is the recommended procedure in bringing up warm >> spare for 8.4. I have two new servers with 9.1 that I'd like to implement >> hot spare and master (?) so once they are running well, I'll move to 9.1 >> from 8.4 and deactivate the older 32 bit machines. >> >> Is that better? >> >> I am willing to hire an expert who can advise us on performance and other >> postgres fine tuning as we use this for mission critical operations. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> -John Coryat >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Cliff Pratt <enkiduonthenet@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:50 AM, John Coryat <coryat@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I have a number of web servers that access a server largely dedicated to >>>> just >>>> Postgres. There are over a million queries a day to this server. It's >>>> working well >>>> and doesn't seem to be bogged down. >>>> >>>> I would like to improve my server system by using a mirror or alternate >>>> machine >>>> for both backup and serving queries. The problem is the data has to be >>>> up to date >>>> on both machines. I've been using Postgres for many years but I've never >>>> had to >>>> do anything like this before. >>>> >>>> What are the best practices for doing this type of data and query >>>> sharing among >>>> separate servers? >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for any assistance. >>>> >>> Without being condescending, you need to determine what you really >>> want to do. That may be what you are really asking. Do you want >>> reliability or performance or maximum up time. These things are not >>> mutually incompatible, but if you have a specific goal in mind you are >>> likely to succeed whereas if you don't you may end up just messing >>> around. >>> >>> That said, I would suggest that you don't load balance on the DB >>> server but on the front ends web servers. >>> >>> You could set up replication between two servers so that you have a >>> solution to which you can switch if the primary server goes down. But >>> if the database is any size you may have issues switching back. >>> >>> You could automate a switchover so that you have maximum uptime, but >>> again there may be issues switching back. >>> >>> Really, as I said at the start, you need to decide what your >>> requirements are so that people can advise the best solution. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Cliff >> >
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: