Fri Feb 5 05:37:44 PST 2010
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Any reason not to have 2 replication slaves, replicating to the same query slave
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Any reason not to have 2 replication slaves, replicating to the same query slave
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 22:39 -0800, Tory M Blue wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at crankycanuck.ca> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 03:39:03PM -0800, Tory M Blue wrote: > >> Slon 1.2.20 (For now as I migrate to 8.4 ) > >> > >> Just working out a new Slon setup, with a cascade configuration. > >> > >> ! master talking to 2 Slaves (if not more), that talk to 2-3 Qslaves. > >> > >> Is it wrong to have both Slaves talking, replicating to both QSlaves? > > > > When you say "replicating to", do you mean they're both actively > > sending data to the other replicas? If so, then it won't work. Only > > one can be the set origin for a given target at a time. But they can > > both be forwarders, such that one could take over for the other. > > > > A > > > > Thanks Andrew > > Ahh interesting, yes I have it setup so that 2 and 3 both send > (forward) data to 4 and 5.. the paths take, listeners are created but > I had a feeling this may not be wise. Are you sure it doesn't work? I > think I have it working, but if it's frowned upon or otherwise > questionable, I'll change my path. Having the paths in place is fine. The extra paths will increase the communications cost, but can be safer and simply your DR. I think you have the concept wrong. For a given set, data flows from a single provider to a single subscriber. This is a unique one-to-one pairing. You can have as many of these pairing as you can support, and they can be cascaded (a node is both a subscriber and a provider for the same set). All the paths are are channels for communication (which will also move data if appropriate). > Also to include more info. I have 3 sets. > > sets 1,2,3 are on the master and the 2 slaves (master replicating > (actively sending data to both slaves). I could fail-over between > these 3 nodes. > > set 1 is only replicated between the slaves (2 and 3) and the Qslaves > ( 4 and 5). > 2-4 > 3-4 > 2-5 > 3-5 > > Master and Slaves are forwarders. Qslaves are non forwarders > > Still wrong, even if I "Think" I have it working? I don't see anything wrong with this config. -- Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106 Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Any reason not to have 2 replication slaves, replicating to the same query slave
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Any reason not to have 2 replication slaves, replicating to the same query slave
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list