List:Replication« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Kiss Dániel Date:September 13 2010 10:28am
Subject:Re: Unique ID's across multiple databases
View as plain text  
This is actually more for failover scenarios where databases are spread in
multiple locations with unreliable internet connections. But you want 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 Dániel <niel@stripped> 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
>

Thread
Unique ID's across multiple databasesKiss Dániel12 Sep
  • Re: Unique ID's across multiple databasesMarcus Bointon12 Sep
    • Re: Unique ID's across multiple databasesMax Schubert12 Sep
  • RE: Unique ID's across multiple databasesJerry Schwartz13 Sep