List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Johan De Meersman Date:September 2 2010 3:57pm
Subject:Re: Replication VS Cluster
View as plain text  
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:51 PM, <a.smith@stripped> wrote:

> Quoting Jangita <jangita@stripped>:
>
>
>> Simply put: I want a solution that ensures that server 2 has all the data
>> at server 1 at any point in time; say server 1 suddenly fell into a pond :)
>> . I wouldnt want to open server 2 and find the last insert/update/delete
>> missing...
>>
>>
> Ok so that rules out any asynchronous replication (MySQL replication for
> example).
>


Actually, recent 5.1 servers do have 'semi-synchronous' replication, where
replication is synchronous until the slave happens to timeout, where it
reverts to asynchronous until you fix it. Incidentally, this is default
Oracle behaviour, too, if you're not talking RAC.

-- 
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel

Thread
Replication VS ClusterJangita2 Sep
  • Re: Replication VS ClusterJohan De Meersman2 Sep
    • Re: Replication VS ClusterJangita2 Sep
  • Re: Replication VS Clustera.smith2 Sep
    • Re: Replication VS ClusterJangita2 Sep
      • RE: Replication VS ClusterNeil Aggarwal2 Sep
        • Re: Replication VS ClusterJohan De Meersman2 Sep
        • Re: Replication VS ClusterJohan De Meersman2 Sep
      • Re: Replication VS Clustera.smith2 Sep
        • Re: Replication VS ClusterJohan De Meersman2 Sep