[pgpool-general: 2911] Re: pgpool 3.3 and watchdog

[Joar Jegleim]

Hi Alexandru,

I looked into pacemaker ++ and decided I didn't need take that route
for my (only) 2 node setup .
I've been hardening my 2 node pgpool, watchdog, floating ip master /
slave setup .
I plan on publishing my whole setup as a howto when done ( if my boss
give me go) , I'll keep you posted.

Be patient, this takes time, don't expect any howto on this until
august / september, mabye even october ( got a big release due in
sept. which I'm working hard to make sure our pgpool failover cluster
may serve) .

And please cc my mail directly when mailing me, since I filter all my
mailinglist mail, and came over your post here by accident :)

regards
Joar Jegleim


On 9 June 2014 21:45, Alexandru Cardaniuc <cardaniuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Joar,
>
> Can you keep us in the loop on your research? That kind of setup would
> be something interesting to consider if it increases the robustness of
> the clustering solution.
>
> Joar Jegleim <joar.jegleim at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Please forgive me, false alarm, it works now.
>>
>> When I was reproducing this to send you the logs it suddenly worked
>> (?) . I suspect it's because I've disabled iptables since I was
>> working with this last time.
>>
>> I've previously opened up heartbeat port 9694 and watchdog port 9000
>> between the 2 nodes (+ pgpool and postgres ports of course), I thought
>> mabye that was enough . Mabye I will have to open up for the delegate
>> ip as well, or mabye there are some more ports I will have to open up.
>>
>> Anyway, I will continue testing with no iptables, and figure this
>> thing out when pgpool and postgres configuration / testing / tuning
>> etc.. is done .
>>
>>
>> As an other note I was looking into using pacemaker and all the
>> cluster utilities that comes with CentOS yesterday, I wonder if anyone
>> have any experience in using pacemaker + pgpool VS. simply using
>> pgpool + watchdog and delegate ip .
>>
>> My first impression of pacemaker is that it seem pretty robust + mabye
>> I should consider proper fencing of failed nodes . On the other side
>> going down that route my setup becomes a whole lot more complex so I'm
>> not sure yet which is better for my setup which most probably will
>> consist of 2 nodes ( I'd have to disable cuorum and stuff ) .
>>
>> I will probably look into both solutions and try figure out what works
>> best for us .
>>
>> Any input on this is much appreciated .
>
> --
> "Never let school interfere with your education."
> - Mark Twain
> _______________________________________________
> pgpool-general mailing list
> pgpool-general at pgpool.net
> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general



-- 
----------------------
Joar Jegleim
Homepage: http://cosmicb.no
Linkedin: http://no.linkedin.com/in/joarjegleim
fb: http://www.facebook.com/joar.jegleim
AKA: CosmicB @Freenode

----------------------