From: Kiss Dániel
Date: September 13 2010 7:16pm
Subject: Re: Unique ID's across multiple databases
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/222977
Message-Id: <AANLkTimWG=JTW8FGO0ZjgVCm2SUecVtT8HHdTtPr8+4e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c3f80388a63049028f081

--0015174c3f80388a63049028f081
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, that would be the plan, yes. :-)
Anyway, I'll get over the problem sooner or later. :-)

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Jerry Schwartz <jerry@stripped> wrote:

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Kiss D=C3=A1niel [mailto:niel@stripped]
> >Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:49 AM
> >To: Jerry Schwartz
> >Cc: Johan De Meersman; Max Schubert; mysql@stripped;
> >replication@stripped
> >Subject: Re: Unique ID's across multiple databases
> >
> >Well, not exactly.
> >
> >I do not own all the databases. Some of them are placed at customers, so=
me
> >of them are at my data warehouse. So, neither NAS or Fibre Channel is a
> >solution in this case.
> >
> [JS] Then you have a mess on your hands.
>
> Are you going to be mirroring these databases separately for each custome=
r?
>
> I wish you well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Schwartz
> Global Information Incorporated
> 195 Farmington Ave.
> Farmington, CT 06032
>
> 860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
> E-mail: jerry@stripped
> Web site: www.the-infoshop.com
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Jerry Schwartz <jerry@stripped> wrote:
> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: vegivamp@stripped [mailto:vegivamp@stripped] On Behalf Of
> Johan
> >> De
> >> >Meersman
> >> >Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 7:27 AM
> >> >To: Kiss D=C3=A1niel
> >> >Cc: Max Schubert; mysql@stripped; replication@stripped
> >> >Subject: Re: Unique ID's across multiple databases
> >> >
> >> >Hmm, that's a very interesting scenario, indeed.
> >> >
> >> >One bad connection will break the chain, though, so in effect you'll =
be
> >> >multiplying the disconnecting rate...
> >> >
> >> >I think you'd be better of with a star topology, but MySQL
> unfortunately
> >> >only allows ring-types. This is gonna require some good thinking on
> your
> >> >part :-)
> >> >
> >> [JS] It sounds like you are trying to protect against a regional
> disaster.
> >>
> >> This is precisely the type of scenario for which NAS or FibreChannel i=
s
> >> used.
> >> You let the storage medium take care of replication. Typically you'd
> only
> >> need
> >> two units, perhaps on opposite sides of the country, using FibreChanne=
l
> >> over
> >> IP.
> >>
> >> I've been out of this market (sales/support side) for many years, so I
> >> don't
> >> know what the current technology costs, but if you can afford it that =
is
> >> the
> >> way to go. It will make your life much simpler.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jerry Schwartz
> >> Global Information Incorporated
> >> 195 Farmington Ave.
> >> Farmington, CT 06032
> >>
> >> 860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
> >> E-mail: jerry@stripped
> >> Web site: www.the-infoshop.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kiss D=C3=A1niel <niel@stripped>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This is actually more for failover scenarios where databases are
> spread
> >> in
> >> >> multiple locations with unreliable internet connections. But you wa=
nt
> to
> >> >> keep every single location working even when they are cut off from
> the
> >> >> other
> >> >> databases. The primary purpose is not load distribution.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Johan De Meersman <
> vegivamp@stripped
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Kiss D=C3=A1niel <niel@stripped=
om>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> offset + increment thingy is good if you know in advance that
> you'll
> >> >> have
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> limited number of servers. But if you have no idea that you will
> have
> >> 2,
> >> >> >> 20,
> >> >> >> or 200 servers in your array in the future, you just can't pick =
an
> >> >> optimal
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What benefit do you think you will reap from that many masters ?
> Don't
> >> >> > forget that every write still has to be done on every server, so
> >> you're
> >> >> not
> >> >> > actually distributing that load; while for reads you only need
> simple
> >> >> > slaves.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Bier met grenadyn
> >> >> > Is als mosterd by den wyn
> >> >> > Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
> >> >> > Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Bier met grenadyn
> >> >Is als mosterd by den wyn
> >> >Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
> >> >Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>

--0015174c3f80388a63049028f081--