Mon Sep 7 09:03:22 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony replication monitoring
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Does every node really need a path to every other node?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
The documentation at http://www.slony.info/documentation/slonylistenercosts.html states that "It is necessary to have sl_listen entries allowing connection from each node to every other node. Most will normally not need to be [used] (sic) very heavily, but it still means that there needs to be n(n-1) paths." I have been running perfectly fine for several months where this is not true. I have a master node A with 4 sets. Node B replicates all 4 sets and there is of course a path between A and B. Node C replicates 2 sets and there is a path between A and C. But there is no path between B and C. As far as I know, this simply means that I will be restricted if I try to do things like FAILOVER or MOVE SET. I'm thinking if I need to do that, I can add the necessary paths at that time. But not having the extra path from B-C all the time saves resources. In any case, the documentation implies that I MUST have the connection, and that does not appear to be the case. Thanks, Gordon -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Does-every-node-really-need-a-path-to-every-other-node--tp25332701p25332701.html Sent from the Slony-I -- General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony replication monitoring
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Does every node really need a path to every other node?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list