Circular replication is still a really bad idea. See the comments
after that article for a few of the problems it can cause. The article
is simply a proof of concept for what is possible, not a
recommendation of what to run in production.
The author notes that in the comments as well:
"Please be aware that my article is just a proof of concept. It is not
an example of what you should do in production, because of this
problem.
Currently, you can't detect the master log position using only SQL
routines. You should use external applications for that.
At the moment, the technology available in MySQL stored routines is
not able to handle such information unassisted.
Best regards
Giuseppe"
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Jed Reynolds <lists@stripped> wrote:
> Marcus Bointon wrote:
> > On 26 Feb 2008, at 17:09, Rick James wrote:
> >
> >> I hope you don't mean 6 masters in a circle. If one fails, you will
> >> have a mess.
> >
> > Not necessarily:
> >
> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/04/20/advanced-mysql-replication.html?page=2
> >
> >
> > That's not to say that I wouldn't find it a scary thing to manage! I
> > suspect with 6 servers, 2 masters and 4 slaves might be a better
> > arrangement.
>
> I would agree. The only drawback to I find to having just two masters is
> the situation where one master gets disabled for a prolonged time and I
> need to take a snapshot from the other master, then I have a few seconds
> of downtime on the remaining master. I'm sure I could improve my
> technique, but I can tolerate what I have currently.
>
> Jed
>
> --
> MySQL Replication Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/replication?unsub=1
>
>
--
Eric Bergen
eric.bergen@stripped
http://www.provenscaling.com
