Greg Smith, 12.07.2010 18:11:
Yes, but if you try you'll discover that actually getting any shared
disk or file system replication solution setup so that you really do
achieve less failover loss than the file shipping approach will be
expensive, complicated, fragile in its own way, and just
Greg Smith, 10.07.2010 14:44:
Is there a difference in how much data could potentially be lost in
case of a failover? E.g. because 9.0 replicates the changes quicker than 8.4?
There's nothing that 9.0 does that you can' t do with 8.4 and the right
software to aggressively ship partial files
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 08:58 +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
Greg Smith, 10.07.2010 14:44:
Is there a difference in how much data could potentially be lost in
case of a failover? E.g. because 9.0 replicates the changes quicker than
8.4?
There's nothing that 9.0 does that you can' t do
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
The manual lists three possible solutions to HA: shared disk failover,
file system replication and Warm/Hot Standby. I'm not an admin (nor a
DBA), so my question might sound a bit stupid: from my point of view
solutions using shared disk failover of file system
Brad Nicholson wrote:
One further thing to mention - all of these solutions are based on
making the physical blocks available (actually, I'm not sure about
Streaming replication in 9.0).
You're right here; the SR feature in 9.0 is essentially near real-time
partial WAL file shipping, and the
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
I'm wondering about the differences when the failover situation
occurs. From reading the docs, I get the impression that 9.0's
streaming replication might be faster than 8.4's WAL shipping, but
otherwise offers the same level of data protection.
Is there a difference in
Hi,
we are contemplating the possibilities for a Postgres HA installation.
As the rollout is targeted towards the end of the year, 9.0 and it's new
features might be an option for us.
Now from a HA point of view, what is the major difference between 9.0's Hot
Standby and 8.x's Warm Standby?
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Thomas Kellerer spam_ea...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi,
we are contemplating the possibilities for a Postgres HA installation.
As the rollout is targeted towards the end of the year, 9.0 and it's new
features might be an option for us.
Now from a HA point of view,
Hi,
Rob Wultsch wrote on 09.07.2010 18:14:
I am aware that I can use the 9.0 standby server for read only queries, but
that is (currently) not something we need
Taking SQL backups without impacting the master might be something to consider.
Interesting point. Thanks for mentioning that.
Thomas Kellerer spam_ea...@gmx.net wrote:
So my assumption is correct that streaming replication does mean
that in case of a failover less transactions are lost?
Yes, that is correct.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:31 +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
Hi,
Rob Wultsch wrote on 09.07.2010 18:14:
I am aware that I can use the 9.0 standby server for read only queries, but
that is (currently) not something we need
Taking SQL backups without impacting the master might be
, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Thomas Kellerer
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:31 +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
Hi,
Rob Wultsch wrote on 09.07.2010 18:14:
I am aware that I can use the 9.0 standby server for read
] On Behalf Of Brad Nicholson
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Thomas Kellerer
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:31 +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
Hi,
Rob Wultsch wrote on 09.07.2010 18:14
13 matches
Mail list logo
