From: Peter Korsgaard Date: October 30 2000 11:18pm Subject: Re: server protocol used in mysql List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/internals/76 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On 30 Oct 2000, Beotel wrote: > First of all, I do not think you should meddle with updating all > databases. You should make one machine a master and other as slaves, > and you should let our replication system take care of updates. Ok, you are probably right. The reason why I didn't suggest using it myself is because I don't have any experience using it (as far as I know, it's pretty new) Furthermore I'm not sure how it performs if the master is taken down for some reason. But instead of bugging you about this I better go and read the manual before I make a too big fool of myself ;) Another reason why the replication system in mysql wasn't considered is that i would like to develop a generic system, which can easily be adopted to different databases (fx. postgres), and I would therefor prefer not to use too many unique features of a specific system. > All you have to do is send all updates to the master while SELECT's, > SHOW's, EXPLAINS's and other commands that do not change data should be > sent to the least loaded server. Yes, that's pretty much as I imagined it. > You can measure performance of the server in several different ways, > one being number of mysqld threads running. Yes, I thought about something like that, perhaps combined with the current load of the machine running the server. I imagine gathering the statusinformation though snmp or perhaps corba, but I haven't looked too much into that part yet. > Regarding client - server protocol, we do have some documentation, > which can be sent to you. This sounds great, I would really love to get a copy of it! Thanks! -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard