#EPHEMERAL STORAGE AWS HOW TO#

I wouldn't do this unless I had streaming replication to a I think people were more serious about that before AWS introduced

> where people hinted at running production PostgreSQL workloads

> I have come across some ideas on the Internet The last server only has to last longĮnough for a restart and recovery so it might not have toīe very heavy duty, it's main purpose is to keep the databaseĪlive long enough to recover the 'real' server. Three servers up, on as a secondary failover if the primaryįails so that you (pretty much) always have two servers up Your application needs to handle restarting transactionsĪnd either a reverse proxy/load-balancer or client-sideĭepending on your tolerance for data loss you might need Just the same way if a box using ephemeral storage goes Think about what you'd do if a RAID controllerįried and botchd your entire array at once. This is identical to solutions that use tmpfs on linux forĭatabase storage or dealing with a fully failed storage > In short, I am just trying to learn from other people's experience. data-and-business- intelligence/postgresql- replication-second-edition PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

#EPHEMERAL STORAGE AWS HOW TO#

Own (bugs, unnecessary effort) but the tools also show how to do stuff. Not only it's rather bad idea to implement this on your There are also books like for example.Īnd finally there are tools that help with managing such clusters, likeįor example. There is quite a bit of information in the official docs, although maybeĪ bit too low level - it certainly gives you the building blocks instead Much time have you spent reading about this. It's really unclear what kind of information you expect to get, or how Replicas) nowadays, so it's a reasonably well understood scenario. Pretty much everyone is using such architecture (primary + streaming > concrete information in this aspect is well appreciated. > :-) But I am curious about trade-offs of such a deployment. > Just to be clear, I am not planning anything like this, anytime soon That's a basic latency-durability trade-off. They can't afford any data loss, they use synchronous replicas instead. Pretty much everyone who is serious about HA is running such cluster. > loss of both the instances, the restore time is going be quite a bit > data loss? Even though WAL logs are being shipped to S3, in case of > that need to be followed to pull this through without significant > Have you come across such a deployment? What are some best practices But beyond this the details are sketchy.īoth log shipping and async replication are ancient features, and shouldīe well understood. Worst case scenario in such deployment is data loss of a few > S3 and keeping an async read replica in another AWS availability Generally, this involves shipping WAL logs continuously to > running production PostgreSQL workloads on AWS ephemeral SSD

> I have come across some ideas on the Internet where people hinted at > ephemeral SSD is very fast but isn't durable. As you may know, EBS volumes though durable are very costly when you

Ephemeral storage aws