On 15/11/2005 5:11 p.m., Jason Williams wrote:
> 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
Yes, I'd say that's already true - albeit the solution is limited.
We currently have to use a mix of NDB Cluster tables and replicated
MyISAM and InnoDB tables, mostly for two reasons - 1) it's too expensive
to store everything in memory, and 2) we need FULLTEXT indices for some
data.
But for the data that we can store in NDB, it is great - being
synchronous there are no issues with "replication lag" (where you can
never trust slaves to have the same data as the master) and although it
is a little rough round the edges, I am finding NDB is generally easier
to manage than replication.
When MySQL come out with a version that has disk-based NDB tables and
FULLTEXT indices on all table types (ditto foreign keys, though that's
much less critical), all of my wishes will have come true! :)
-Simon
