Hi,

in this configuration all 15 databases and the consolidation server
need to comunicate all with all the others?

I think this would be very expensive.


On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:35:12 -0400, Jan Wieck <janwieck at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2004 7:59 PM, cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info wrote:
> 
> >> After one hole day of testing :)
> >>
> >> The single master -> single slave was ok.
> >>
> >> But, what I need to implement is this.
> >>
> >> I have 15 databases at 15 points, all connected to internet, and
> >> interconected using openvpn.
> >>
> >> Each point of sale have its own database different from each other, this
> >> was tougth from design, that it could be easier to replicate N
> >> differents database than N diferent tables.
> >>
> >> What I need, is to replicate, all 15 databases to a single server, in
> >> that way, I can consolidate all information.
> >
> > You realize, I trust, that this will mean that the "consolidation server"
> > will have 15 slaves, and that none of them can be modified...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> If every of the 15 databases uses a different schema name, every one of
> them could just be a separate "set" with a different origin. The
> consolidation DB would then be the only subscriber to all those sets and
> require only one slon (with 15 remote_listen, 15 remote_worker and a
> bunch of other threads).
> 
> I also see a feature request for 1.1 here: Override the destination
> schema name in the subscription.
> 
> Jan
> 
> >
> > There are multiple ways of doing this, of course.  If each POS unit has
> > its own distinct namespace/schema (a GOOD idea), or if the tables differ
> > for each instance (probably not so good...) then you could conceivably fit
> > them all into a single database backend and cluster.  That would provide
> > the easiest consolidation of data, which has plenty of merit.
> >
> > Having 15 databases on one cluster (e.g. - one postmaster) or 15
> > postmasters with a database apiece would be the other two obvious options.
> >  They would leave the Slony-I instances more independent of one another;
> > it's probably less suitable for your purposes...
> >
> >> My concern is about the use of slon.. since I need slon running at the
> >> master and slave, I belive, that only once instance of slon must existis
> >> per box... so, how do I setup 15 slon at the slave box?
> >
> > You'd probably want to run a script that invokes 15 slon instances with
> > the varying parameters.
> >
> > We have one box where we run 12 slon instances, and that's just what we
> > do.  Each is configured to point to a different log directory, and a
> > different database instance, which is just no problem at all.
> >
> >> P.D. Do you have an irc channel?
> >
> > Yes.  Look on irc.freenode.net for the "slony" channel.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Slony1-general mailing list
> > Slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
> > http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
> 
> 
> --
> #======================================================================#
> # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
> # Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
> #================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
>