Who said anything about "one slon"?  Jan's point was that you've set this up differently than it is designed to work, and now you're complaining that it doesn't work too well.  Yes, quite right. 

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 5:12, "Sebastien Marchand" <smarchand at sgo.fr> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think it's a problem to have just one slon in wan architecture.
> Sometimes one node is not up for long time so with one slon i can't stop slon master server side.
> I don't know if i can stop just one node with a command for example, so maintenance in wan architecture is not easy
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jan Wieck [mailto:jan at wi3ck.info] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 15 janvier 2015 17:51
> À : Sebastien Marchand; 'Stéphane Schildknecht'; 'Glyn Astill'; 'Vick Khera'
> Cc : 'slony'
> Objet : Re: [Slony1-general] too much work !
> 
>> On 01/13/2015 09:45 AM, Sebastien Marchand wrote:
>> Yeah, 17 cluster name if you prefer.
>> 
>> I start one slon by one cluster.
>> Samples :
>> 
>> slon -s 200 -t 60000 -g 50 -o 60000 -c 0 -d 1 -f 
>> /home/scripts/slon.conf repli_nat dbname=DB2 host=127.0.0.1 port=5432 
>> user=slony password=123 slon -s 200 -t 60000 -g 50 -o 60000 -c 0 -d 1 
>> -f /home/scripts/slon.conf repli_lc3 dbname=DB2 host=127.0.0.1 
>> port=5432 user=slony password=123 slon -s 200 -t 60000 -g 50 -o 60000 
>> -c 0 -d 1 -f /home/scripts/slon.conf repli_lc2 dbname=DB2 
>> host=127.0.0.1 port=5432 user=slony password=123
> 
> This looks as if you created 17 Slony clusters instead of one cluster with 18 nodes.
> 
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Stéphane Schildknecht [mailto:stephane.schildknecht at postgres.fr]
>> Envoyé : mardi 13 janvier 2015 15:22
>> À : Sebastien Marchand; 'Glyn Astill'; 'Vick Khera'
>> Cc : 'slony'
>> Objet : Re: [Slony1-general] too much work !
>> 
>>> On 12/01/2015 11:38, Sebastien Marchand wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 18 nodes, wan network.
>>> 2 replications ( one with 1 set and other with 2 sets ( 2 directions )
>>> ) First replication from server 1 to n servers ( same schema, 37
>>> tables )
>>> 1 slon on server 1 and 1 slon by remote server Second replication :
>>> set 1 : server A -> server 1 ( 90 replicated tables ) set 2 : server A
>>> <- server 1 ( 1 replicated tables ) do the same with 17 other servers
>>> ( one schema by server )
>>> 17 slons on server 1 and 1 slon by  remote server database 5 gB.
>>> 
>>> I don't know if that will help...
>> 
>> Seems to me some information is missing. Distinction on databases, for instance.
>> 
>> I guess, the 2 replications are not correlated.They just share same servers.
>> 
>> In fact, the second replication is not 1 replication, it is 17 different replications. But, do they all end in the same database on server A ?
>> 
>> --
>> Stéphane Schildknecht
>> Contact régional PostgreSQL pour l'Europe francophone Loxodata - Conseil, expertise et formations
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Slony1-general mailing list
>> Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
>> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jan Wieck
> Senior Software Engineer
> http://slony.info
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general