Re: ER server groups
Andy: For the purposes of defining servers to ER each server's alias used for ER must be the only server in only a single group. So you will need 20 groups for the 20 servers. You can have 10 groups each listing the two paired servers using different DBSERVERALIAS names than the ER groups for those servers (ER gets flaky if you use the same alias in more than one group) to use for clients to connect to as a failover group if you don't want to use Connection Manager for that purpose, but those groups are separate from the ER group for each server. Art Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant ASK Database Management Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Andrew Grantham <agrantha@hotmail.com>wrote: > Informix V11.70.FC2 > > All, > > I am looking for an example of multiple instances being defined with the > same > server group for Enterprise Replication. Is this possible? > > Also is there any performance improvement to using fewer server groups in > ER? > > A bit of background information may help out here. I am going to set up an > update-anywhere environment between 2 machines. On each machine there are > 10 > instances. Each instance will replicate to its corresponding instance on > the > other server. We cannot use HDR so it will be ER. At the moment each > instance > pair if you like is autonomous and does not rely on any other. So the > question > is what is the best way to define this? To have 10 seperate pairs ( and 20 > seperate groups ) or to have 2 groups, one for all instances on each > server or > if you have any better ideas I am all ears. > > Regards > > Andy Grantham > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > --089e011609ccd2893304f947c6db
I would also add that the engine will start without errors, at least in 11.7x, if you have the same server in multiple groups. But you will not get the connectivity you expect :-) Cheers Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Art > Kagel > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 8:10 AM > To: ids@iiug.org > Subject: Re: ER server groups [33000] > > Andy: > > For the purposes of defining servers to ER each server's alias used for ER > must be the only server in only a single group. So you will need 20 groups > for the 20 servers. You can have 10 groups each listing the two paired > servers using different DBSERVERALIAS names than the ER groups for those > servers (ER gets flaky if you use the same alias in more than one group) to > use for clients to connect to as a failover group if you don't want to use > Connection Manager for that purpose, but those groups are separate from > the > ER group for each server. > > Art > > Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant > ASK Database Management > > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ > > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions > and do not reflect on the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am > associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do > those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any > entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Andrew Grantham > <agrantha@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > Informix V11.70.FC2 > > > > All, > > > > I am looking for an example of multiple instances being defined with the > > same > > server group for Enterprise Replication. Is this possible? > > > > Also is there any performance improvement to using fewer server groups > in > > ER? > > > > A bit of background information may help out here. I am going to set up an > > update-anywhere environment between 2 machines. On each machine > there are > > 10 > > instances. Each instance will replicate to its corresponding instance on > > the > > other server. We cannot use HDR so it will be ER. At the moment each > > instance > > pair if you like is autonomous and does not rely on any other. So the > > question > > is what is the best way to define this? To have 10 seperate pairs ( and 20 > > seperate groups ) or to have 2 groups, one for all instances on each > > server or > > if you have any better ideas I am all ears. > > > > Regards > > > > Andy Grantham > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > ********************* > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > --089e011609ccd2893304f947c6db > > > ********************************************************** > ********************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.