[pgpool-general: 2910] Re: pgpool 3.3 and watchdog
cardaniuc at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 04:45:45 JST 2014
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
More information about the pgpool-general