On Wednesday 07 April 2010 11:24:34 am Marcus Bointon wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2010, at 18:27, Mike Diehl wrote:
> > A split read/write scheme will affect reliability if one of the write
> > servers happends to be down... As I'm understanding it, Mysql's
> > replication would survive this scenario. What I'd be getting is the
> > ability to do local reads/writes and Mysql would simply propogate my
> > writes. For the most part, data latency won't be a big deal for my
> > applications unless we're talking HOURS. (and we're not, unless something
> > is BAD wrong.)
> OK, I can see a problem here; a mysql instance can only be a slave to one
> master. A 'normal' mode of circular replication would be A<->B, treating A
> as the active master (i.e no writes normally go to B, but it will all still
> work if you do). If you have A->B->C->A (C being offsite) and C dies, no
> writes to B will make it back to A. That's a pretty fragile setup. You
> could do active failover to take C out of the loop and repoint B at A,
> however, that's likely to cause data loss if C ever comes back.
Ya, that's extremely fragile and I can't believe I missed that. Thank you.
Now I get to reconsider my entire design! ;)
I'm leaning toward: A<->B->C Thanks for the suggestion.
Then I point my local applications to A/B and just take the hit. I can use C
to perform backups without killing A/B. This would let me do by backups in
the daytime, what a thought!
Now, if B dies, my backups will get behind until I either re-peer A->C, or
bring B back up. I can live with that.
C could also serve as a hot stand-by incase the co-lo that houses A/B falls
Am I missing anything?
> Replication latency becomes a problem if you do any long transactions. If
> you have a transaction that takes 10 minutes on A, it won't show up on C
> until 30 minutes later (assuming equal server performance).
I don't have any update transactions that take more than a few seconds, and I
don't read the resulting data for several minutes. So I'm OK here.
I am worried about things like:
update worklist set work_sequence=random() where...
I'd LIKE this to work as expected. I'd rather not have to loop over the
dataset and set individual records... My research, so far, hasn't revealed
how this would be handled.
> That's the one - mmm needs to be able to handle floating IPs and emit arp
> packets, which only really makes sense on a LAN.
If this were possible at all, it would be a routing nightmare. My co-lo
provider probably wouldn't allow/support it.
Take care and have fun,