Hello all, We have been considering Sequoia for our product deployment. Looks like an extremely robust and very well engineered product. Well done! ;)
We aim to provide fault tolerance and high availability for our software product which uses PostgreSQL, and Sequoia seems like the natural candidate. I was hoping you could help me decide if this is the right solution for us, as I've only had a few days worth of experimentation, and have not come to conclusions on the following factors: 1. We will not use JDBC (we do not use Java), but a C++ client application. 2. Our product will be deployed in the following form: two boxes, each running a PostgreSQL server and our server application, using heartbeat2 and Sequoia to provide active/passive functionality. >From what I understand, Sequoia is not meant as an "Automatic" fail-over/recovery mechanism - i.e. it requires manual intervention to recover. Consider the following scenario: 1. Primary server is malfunctioning, Backup server is now active ... [all SQL activity takes place on the backup server]... 2. Primary server is back on-line. Is it possible to make the primary server re-sync automatically and assume the primary role once more without manual intervention, or would I have to run the Sequoia console, recover the logs manually and enable the Backend to bring the primary server back on-line? Thanks! -- Gilad _______________________________________________ Sequoia mailing list Sequoia@lists.forge.continuent.org https://forge.continuent.org/mailman/listinfo/sequoia
