From: Marcus Bointon
Date: September 21 2011 9:39pm
Subject: Re: confirm subscribe to replication@lists.mysql.com
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/replication/2218
Message-Id: <38E58CA2-F2F6-4610-A085-529D6253FAFE@synchromedia.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.

Marcus
--=20
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
UK resellers of info@hand CRM solutions
marcus@stripped | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/