<dons Nomex undies>
Well, I would generally have to agree on not using Slony 1 for HA. I
don't see how it could be considered acceptable to potentially lose
committed transactions when the master fails. Unless maybe my
understanding of Slony is flawed...

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:42:47PM -0500, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
> Wiley Press, ISBN 0-471-43026-9, Even Marcus & Hal Stern
> 
> Whatever you do, don't read this book when planning your enterprise-class 
> PostgreSQL cluster using Slony1.  The author(s) give a scathing opinion of 
> network based asynchronous database replication.  Especially for redundant 
> configurations within the same facility.  They concede that the method has 
> some applicable uses (facility to facility replication), but they go so 
> far as to recommend long distance SAN before software+network.
> 
> The entire text has a highly anti-microsoft undercurrent which makes it a 
> real page-turner, unfortunately, most of the advice regarding HA 
> application clusters has a commercial-UNIX oriented slant (they all but 
> endorse VERITAS).
> 
> The book only serves to further emphasize that there is no definitive FMS 
> (Fail over Management Software) solution for Open Source UNIX-like OSs. 
> No true platform-independent (well, Linux-HA[.org]) project that 
> integrates with monitoring, databases, web servers, load balancers, RAID 
> / SAN controller, etc.
> 
> The projects are there (PostgreSQL, Slony, PGPool, Nagios, Net-SNMP, 
> FreeVRRPd, FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, Linux-HA, etc..), there just no integration 
> yet.
> 
> ~BAS
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
> 

-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby at pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461