You could write to an InnoDB frontend with master/master replication at
each site, and slave off the local InnoDB server to your local cluster
at each site.
Would make your writes limited by your InnoDB server performance and
remote replication speed, but reads would run at cluster speeds and be a
bit more bulletproof.
That could also potentially cover the foreign key constraints limitation
in cluster since last I checked, it doesn't support these--may have
changed recently--don't know. The foreign key constraint checks in this
case would be covered by the InnoDB frontend prior to pushing to cluster.
Also looks like the latest MySQL cluster solution supports asynchronous
binlog style replication per link below, so guess that's a possibility
On 07/18/2012 04:45 PM, Rick James wrote:
> Keep in mind that all "cluster" solutions are vulnerable to a single power failure,
> earthquake, flood, tornado, etc.
> To "protect" from such, you need a hot backup located remotely from the "live" setup.
> This introduces latency that will kill performance -- all cluster solutions depend on
> syncing, heartbeats, etc, that cannot afford long latencies.
> You may choose to ignore that issue. But, before going forward you need to make that
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antonis Kopsaftis [mailto:akops@stripped]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:09 AM
>> To: Carl Kabbe
>> Cc: mysql@stripped
>> Subject: Re: Looking for consultant
>> As far i can understand by your post, you need a high availability
>> mysql cluster with large capacity.
>> For having high availability you need something that can give you
>> multi-master replication between two or more mysql servers.
>> In my knowledge there are three solutions that can give you multi-
>> 1. "Official" mysql cluster
>> It's an Enterprise class solution, very complicated, but 'it fully
>> multi-master. I was using one for about two year, but i dont recommend
>> it because (at least in my setup) it did not have very good
>> It's use it's own storage engine(NDB) which has a number of
>> 2. Tungsten replicator.
>> It 's relative new product. It support multi-master replication between
>> different type of databases, and it seems very promising. It's java
>> based. I haven't tested it but you can read a lot about on:
>> 3. Percona xtraDB cluster
>> It's also a relative new product. It's also support multi-master
>> replication, and it seems to have very good performance. The last 3
>> weeks i have installed a 3 node cluster of percona software and i'm
>> testing it. It seems to works ok, and after some optimization it has
>> better performance than my production mysql setup(simple primary-slave
>> replication) on same hardware (virtual machines). If i dont find any
>> serious problem till September i will use it for production.
>> Now,for you application to communicate with the two mysql master nodes
>> there several solutions:
>> 1. Desing your app to use both mysql servers. With this solution you
>> can ever split writes in the one server, and reads in the other. It's
>> up to you to do whatever you want.
>> 2. Setup a simple heartbeat solution and setup a floating virtual ip
>> between you mysql servers. If one of the mysql server( i mean the whole
>> OS) crash, the floating ip will be attached to the second server.
>> 3. In each app server, install a tcp load balancer software like
>> "haproxy" and balance the mysql tcp connections between your app
>> servers and the mysql servers.
>> On 18/7/2012 6:11 μμ, Carl Kabbe wrote:
>>> We are actually facing both capacity and availability issues at the
>> same time.
>>> Our current primary server is a Dell T410 (single processor, 32 GB
>> memory) with a Dell T310 (single processor, 16GB memory) as backup.
>> Normally, the backup server is running as a slave to the primary server
>> and we manually switch it over when the primary server fails (which it
>> did last Saturday morning at 2:00AM.) The switch over process takes
>> 10-15 minutes although I am reducing that to about five minutes with
>> some scripting (the changeover is a little more complex than you might
>> think because we have a middle piece, also MySQL, that we use to
>> determine where the real data is.) Until six months ago, the time
>> delay was not a problem because the customer processes could tolerate
>> such a delay. However, we now have a couple of water parks using our
>> system at their gate, in their gift shops and in their concessions so
>> we need to now move the changeover time to a short enough period that
>> they really don't notice. Hence, the need I have described as 'high
>>> The T410 is normally reasonably capable of processing our
>> transactions, i.e., the customers are comfortable with the latency.
>> However, we have been on the T310 since last Saturday and it is awful,
>> basically barely able to keep up and producing unacceptable latency.
>> Further, our load will double in the next six months and double again
>> the the following six months.
>>> So, my thought was that since we have to deal with the issue change
>>> over time which will cause us to restructure the servers, that we
>>> should also deal with the capacity issue. I think a couple of Dell
>>> T620's will provide the capacity we need (the servers we have spec'ed
>>> should be around 8X faster than the T410) but I have no experience
>>> evaluating or setting up HA systems (I have worked with MySQL for 12
>>> years and am reasonably comfortable with it and I have read
>>> I can find about HA options and their implementations.) Hence, my
>>> post asking for help (which we are willing to pay for.)
>>> The web app is primarily JSP's for the administration side and Flash
>>> for the operators and other people doing transactions. The server
>>> side code is about 1.25 million lines of code and there are about 750
>>> JSP's. The data is 950 tables with heavy use of foreign key
>>> constraints. The container is Tomcat which runs on separate servers
>>> (the data servers only run MySQL.)
>>> Any ideas or help in any way are always welcome.
>>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Shawn Green wrote:
>>>> On 7/17/2012 8:22 PM, Carl Kabbe wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, I asked if there were consultants out there who could
>> help set up an NDB high availability system. As I compared our needs
>> to NDB, it became obvious that NDB was not the answer and more obvious
>> that simply adding high availability processes to our existing Innodb
>> system was.
>>>>> So, I am back asking if there are consultants lurking on this list
>> that could help with this project.
>>>> As has been discussed on this list many times before, there are many
>> ways to measure 'high availability'. Most of them deal with what kind
>> of disaster you want to survive or return to service from. If all you
>> are looking for is additional production capacity then the terms you
>> may want to investigate are 'scale out', 'partitioning', and
>> 'replication'. All high-availability solutions require at least some
>> level of hardware redundancy. Sometimes they require multiple layers in
>> multiple locations.
>>>> Several of those features of MySQL also help with meeting some high-
>> availability goals.
>>>> Are you willing to discuss your specific desired availability
>> thresholds in public?
>>>> Shawn Green
>>>> MySQL Principal Technical Support Engineer Oracle USA, Inc. -
>>>> Hardware and Software, Engineered to Work Together.
>>>> Office: Blountville, TN
>>>> MySQL General Mailing List
>>>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>> MySQL General Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql