This is the system i am talking about: http://people.planetpostgresql.org/xzilla/index.php?/archives/326-Solving-the-big-science-checklist.html
There are many parties involved, and i am trying to figure out what configuration would be ideal for ours. On Nov 29, 2007 3:20 PM, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Willy-Bas Loos wrote: > > I'll take that as a "no". > > What i mean is to actually run exactly one cluster (no replicated copy) > on > > more than one server. Of course, if that were possible, why would people > > bother with replication.. > > > > I guess it is irrational to suggest that it would be possible, since > each > > server would at least need to have it's own copy of the DBMS software > etc, > > or it would cease to be a separate server. > > I think you need to better identify what you're trying to do. I can > think of a couple of different solutions based on the limited info > provided. You've already said you don't want replication. > > We have a scenario where we have a data silo that is shared between two > servers, so the data exist in one place. To make things simple, if one > server fails, the postmasters running on that server are started on the > other server. This is a hot/hot fail over implementation as we have > multiple postmasters running. > > You could implement a hot/warm fail over solution if you're running a > single postmaster. > > Finally, you might be thinking of something like a beowulf cluster where > multiple machines function as a single machine. I can't help you with > that scenario as I don't have any experience with it and postgresql. > > -- > Until later, Geoffrey > > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. > - Benjamin Franklin > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >