Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 21:49 +0300, Alex wrote: > Hello gentlemen, > We solved try to use DRBD with Heartbeat for make more reliable > work of PostgreSQL database. But after introduction with most part of > documentation i hasn't found straight answer on one question. > Can DRBD guarantee integrity of database (all tables, indexes, cache > and other parts) after fail of active node and switching in active mode > passive node with start of database? Using protocol C, DRBD will be no more risky than using a filesystem on local disk. With protocol B you add a slight risk that in the event of an outage on the master, a write which was occurring on the slave could fail but still be recorded on the master. With protocol A that window of opportunity is greater and generally shouldn't be used unless you have a high latency network and know what you're doing. In all cases, the master will only record a filesystem transaction after it reaches local disk, so you will always be better off with DRBD. I have had disks crash w/ DRBD and suffered much less than those without. We even had both disks in a RAID 1 die, but DRBD saved our butt by feeding the master with data from the slave. What an ingenious idea. Bottom line, use DRBD. Your database will thank you for it. Corey -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/attachments/20060510/566c462d/attachment.pgp>