Re: Standalone synchronous master
От | MauMau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7C5B6172D080441F8FD8171800713398@maumau обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Standalone synchronous master (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Standalone synchronous master
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Andres Freund" <andres@2ndquadrant.com> > On 2014-01-08 14:42:37 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> If we have the following: >> >> db0->db1:down >> >> Using the model (as I understand it) that is being discussed we have >> increased our failure rate because the moment db1:down we also lose db0. >> The >> node db0 may be up but if it isn't going to process transactions it is >> useless. I can tell you that I have exactly 0 customers that would want >> that >> model because a single node failure would cause a double node failure. > > That's why you should configure a second standby as another (candidate) > synchronous replica, also listed in synchronous_standby_names. Let me ask a (probably) stupid question. How is the sync rep different from RAID-1? When I first saw sync rep, I expected that it would provide the same guarantees as RAID-1 in terms of durability (data is always mirrored on two servers) and availability (if one server goes down, another server continues full service). The cost is reasonable with RAID-1. The sync rep requires high cost to get both durability and availability --- three servers. Am I expecting too much? Regards MauMau
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: