|
From: Attila B. <att...@se...> - 2014-04-07 10:04:36
|
Hi, I have been testing master-master replication solutions recently, and I have identified three possible solutions/software: The scenario Multiple masters located in different offices in the UK (phase 1); all around the globe (phase 2). The servers should be in sync all the time. Possible solutions 1. Bucardo 2. Postgres-XC 3. EnterpriseDB's xDB Replication Server Test results 1. Bucardo Easy to use and set up, but as the data authors at the different offices will create and drop tables quite frequently we cannot really cope with the administration of bucardo, i.e. adding table to the herds. If you have a more or less static dataset or you have a DBA at every site it might work for you though. 2. Postgres-XC The overall structure of the replication looks pretty convincing but I have a few question: - I read somewhere/saw in a slide deck (unfortunately I cannot find it any more) that it creates a performance bottleneck to have the coordinator and the datanode on the same machine (VMs in my test case). Is it still valid? - Is it possible to add 'slave' datanodes to the DB cluster, e.g an external web server? - Approximate overhead/latency? I guess if the user connects to the local (i.e. the user's office) coordinator and commits some changes, the user still have to wait for the data to be sync'd with all the datanodes in the cluster, right? What if the DB cluser includes coordinators/datanodes from all over the globe? 3. EnterpriseDB's xDB Replication Server TBD Thanks in advance. Cheers, Attila |