On 21 Sep 2011, at 23:08, Ricardo wrote:
> Seems awesome! But, and if this is not an abuse on my part, I will like to ask if
> there are real benefits for a person who will use only a master and a slave to use MMM
> instead of just manually configuring the whole thing.
It's quite reasonable to run a master-master pair and use one as a read slave. Given that
a passive master under mmm is set to read-only anyway, it's pretty much already what
you'd consider a slave. The benefit comes when your active master dies and mmm switches
to the passive one without (hopefully!) your app even noticing. In normal (non-failing)
operation, there's no practical difference between master-slave and active master -
passive master configurations. Short version: yes!
> I read this has some kind of a monotoring tool (hence the need of a third machine
> which i think a regular web server sufixe) and that could be something very good for
> future monitoring
Well, you can run the monitoring daemon on one of the servers, but if it's on the node
that dies then it will not fail over (possibly cutting off your app), rather defeating
the point! If it's on a third machine which dies, everything stays running, but you'll
have lost the ability to switch, which isn't itself a big deal.
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
UK resellers of info@hand CRM solutions
marcus@stripped | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/