What about SkyTools?

Started by Dmitry Koterovabout 19 years ago4 messagesgeneral
Jump to latest
#1Dmitry Koterov
dmitry@koterov.ru

Hello.

Have anybody used SkyTools in production environment?
What's the impression? In practice - is it now more preferrable than Slony
or not yet?

#2Robert Treat
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
In reply to: Dmitry Koterov (#1)
Re: What about SkyTools?

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 12:08, Dmitry Koterov wrote:

Hello.

Have anybody used SkyTools in production environment?
What's the impression? In practice - is it now more preferrable than Slony
or not yet?

Well, skype using them in production... I think the general consensus of the
postgresql community is that slony is still the preferred choice, but on
number of deployments and general community knowledge, assuming you need
master/slave style replication. Everything else is still considered fairly
green technology, though that's no reason not to test it in your environment.
IMHO YMMV

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

#3Ivan Zolotukhin
ivan.zolotukhin@gmail.com
In reply to: Dmitry Koterov (#1)
Re: What about SkyTools?

I will test them intensively in coming weeks and report the results. I
wrote an overview of the Skype PostgreSQL projects in Russian (will be
published this week), so there will be more details available soon.

In my opinion, SkyTools are worth testing, they look more interesting
than Slony in some aspects.

Show quoted text

On 4/11/07, Dmitry Koterov <dmitry@koterov.ru> wrote:

Hello.

Have anybody used SkyTools in production environment?
What's the impression? In practice - is it now more preferrable than Slony
or not yet?

#4Dmitry Koterov
dmitry@koterov.ru
In reply to: Robert Treat (#2)
Re: What about SkyTools?

Still looking for a possible (more simple) replacement for Slony in the
background.

1. Seems SkyTools does not have an utility to spread DDL changes among all
the replicas (like slonik does). So, if I want to ALTER TABLE, I have to run
this command manually on each node?

2. The architecture of the system is not clear enough. What daemon should
run in what machine? Seems we must have one PgQ daemon on each machine
(master and all slaves), but should we have a londiste daemon on each
machine too or not? (If yes, we have to care about londiste configs
synchronization on all replicas, which is not very handy.)

Seems SkyTools developed for static schemas only, without an ability to
modify the schema.
Am I wrong?

Show quoted text

On 4/12/07, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 12:08, Dmitry Koterov wrote:

Hello.

Have anybody used SkyTools in production environment?
What's the impression? In practice - is it now more preferrable than

Slony

or not yet?

Well, skype using them in production... I think the general consensus of
the
postgresql community is that slony is still the preferred choice, but on
number of deployments and general community knowledge, assuming you need
master/slave style replication. Everything else is still considered
fairly
green technology, though that's no reason not to test it in your
environment.
IMHO YMMV

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq