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
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kiss Dániel <niel@stripped> wrote:
> 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
> databases. The primary purpose is not load distribution.
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegivamp@stripped
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Kiss Dániel <niel@stripped>
> >> offset + increment thingy is good if you know in advance that you'll
> >> 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
> > 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
> > 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