Stewart,
I apologize if my question was not clear enough. I understand clustering is a different
technology. Atm, you can't do safe multi-master replication to handle situations where
you've got 50/50 read/write work loads. My understanding is that Cluster is going to be
the way that MySQL chooses to address situations where you need to scale MySQL in 50/50
read/write environements. Is that undertanding correct?
-J
-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Smith [mailto:stewart@stripped]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:10 PM
To: Jason Williams
Cc: Mikael Ronström; Mark Kirkwood; Simon Garner; pekka@stripped;
cluster@stripped; Adam Dixon
Subject: RE: Disk-based storage...5.1?
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:55 -0700, Jason Williams wrote:
> Would I be correct in my reading of the chats on the subject, that
> disk-based storage for Cluster will make Cluster the preferred
> solution to multi-master "replication" needs?
No - cluster is synchronous, replication is asynchronous. Also, cluster is it's own way of
storing data while you can replicate to/from myisam etc.
--
Stewart Smith, Software Engineer
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
Office: +14082136540 Ext: 6616
VoIP: 6616@stripped
Mobile: +61 4 3 8844 332
Jumpstart your cluster:
http://www.mysql.com/consulting/packaged/cluster.html
