architecture for high availability

Question

I have this scenario:

You have a factory process line which runs 24/7. Downtime is extremely expensive. The software controlling all different parts must use a shared form of database storage The main reason for this is to know in which state the factory is in. For example some products can be mixed when using the same set of equipement and others DEFINITELY not.

requirements:

• I want to the software be able to detect that an error in one part of the plant must result in some machine shutdown more then 1 km away. so stoing data in the plc's is not an option.
• Updates and upgrades to the factory environment are frequent
• load (in computer terms) will be really low.

The systems handles a few hunderd assignments a day for which calculations / checks are done followed by instructions send for the factory machines. Systems will be bored most of the time. Most important requirement is the central computer system must be correct and always working.

I was thinking to use a dynamo based database (riak or cassandra) where data gets written to multiple machines with each machine having the whole database

When one system goes down it will go down unoticed. A Traditional sql databse might be more of a pain to upgrade when tables changes and this master slave is harder to configure.

What would be your solution?

Network has been made redundant and most other single points of failure to. The database system is critical because downtime of the db means downtime for the entire plant not just one of the machines which is acceptable.

• How to solve shared state problem.
• complexity in the database will not be a problem. I will be more like a simple key value store to get the most current and correct data.

Answer 1

I don't think this is a sql/nosql question. All of Postgres, MySQL and MS SQL Server have some kind of cluster or hot standby option.

Configuration is a one-time thing, but any NoSQL option is going to give you headaches from top-to-bottom of code, if you are trying to do something fundamentally relational on a platform that has given up relational for the purposes of running things like Amazon or Facebook. The configuration is once, the coding is forever.

So I would say stick with a tried and true solution and get that hot replication going.

This also provides a solution for upgrades. The typical sequence is to "fail over" to the standby, upgrade the master, flip back to the master, upgrade the standby, and resume. With details specific to the situation of course.

Answer 2

Use an established RDBMS that supports such things natively

Do you really want to run a 24/7 mission critical system on something that may be consistent at any point in time?