On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 02:32:05PM +0800, Martin Aspeli wrote: > Florian Haas wrote: >> On 03/09/2010 06:07 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Let's say have a two-node cluster with DRBD and OCFS2, with a database >>> server that's supposed to be active on one node at a time, using the >>> OCFS2 partition for its data store. >> *cringe* Which database is this? > > Postgres. > > Why are you cringing? From my reading, I had gathered this was a pretty > common setup to support failover of Postgres without the luxury of a > SAN. Are you saying it's a bad idea?
PgSQL on top of DRBD is OK. PgSQL on top of OCFS2 is a disaster waiting to gnaw your leg off. > Mmm, you're not: > http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/when-not-to-use-drbd :-) > > Or is it OCFS2 you're objecting to? We're using this because there are a > few shared files ("blobs" in our CMS) that get written by processes on > both nodes. This is very infrequent, though. Split them -- put PostgreSQL on a regular filesystem and mount it before starting the database, and run a separate dual-primary for your blobs. > Also note that this database will see relatively few write transactions > compared to read transactions, if that makes a difference. Cluster filesystems suck at high IO request rates, regardless of whether they're reads or writes. - Matt _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
