I think i didn't explain me well - I do not write to both masters, I only write on let's
say Master 1. When this fails, then I write to Master 2 and keep doing so until Master 1
On 27 Oct 2011, at 08:06, Marcus Bointon <marcus@stripped> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2011, at 02:09, Ricardo wrote:
>> In order to have a small redudant system, this is the way to go.
>> I've made a mistake and allowed colisions to happen
>> The increment-increment and offset increment will problably solve this
> Writing to both masters is not improving your redundancy - it's reducing it! If your
> replication fails then you've got incomplete data on BOTH servers, not just one. You
> really don't want to do it. This is why MMM sets the passive master to read-only. The
> increment offset will fix your clash problem, but that doesn't mean you should write to
> both at once.
> As has been said many times, master-master replication is not a scaling solution.
> Marcus Bointon
> Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
> UK info@hand CRM solutions
> marcus@stripped | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/
> MySQL Replication Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/replication?unsub=1