List:Cluster« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Mikael ronström Date:February 3 2011 3:17pm
Subject:Re: cluster-plain Digest 2 Feb 2011 12:03:32 -0000 Issue 811
View as plain text  
Hi Michael,

The application you describe is a very standard use case for
MySQL Cluster. I don't know all the particulars in your case
but this type of applications is a perfect fit for MySQL
Cluster in most cases.

Rgrds Mikael Ronstrom

On 02/03/2011 03:55 PM, list@stripped wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:17:10 +0100, Oli Sennhauser
> <oli.sennhauser@stripped>  wrote:
>> Hello Michael,
>>> foreign keys are not available when using MySQL Cluster as the storage
>>> engine for a table (InnoDB is the only storage engine that supports
>>> them).
>>> While not ideal there is a workaround that will work for some
>>> applications -
>>> written up here....
>>> ml (basically using stored procedures to enforce the referential
>>> integrity).
>>> Please excuse my lack of mysql knowledge, as I have not worked with the
>>> software for very long, but we are evaluating mysql cluster for our
>>> deployment of a mysql server farm and have run into a major snafu with
>>> support for foreign key support.   I ran into this problem when
>>> installing
>>> Funambol (a SyncML server) which builds it's mysql database
> automatically
>>> and with a large number of indexes on multiple tables.  Is there a way
> to
>>> enable support for the foreign keys, or are we pretty much out of luck?
>> First of all you have to be aware that MySQL Cluster has only little to
>> do with normal MySQL. So your MySQL knowledge would not really help much
>> here.
>> MySQL Cluster is a specialized product (especially for Telcos) and is
>> NOT a general purpose database.
>> This has the effect that you typically will not get the expected results
>> when you try it out and you will be disappointed. As long as you run the
>> system not at its limits it might work fine but you will not reach the
>> peak performance without explicitly tune your application.
>> Funambol looks to me like such a general purpose application expecting a
>> "normal" relational database as a back-end.
>> Now it comes to the question, why do you consider MySQL Cluster? Is it
>> HA or is it performance. When you are interested in performance then I
>> am pretty sure we can achieve the solution with a normal MySQL database
>> (you do not want to rewrite and redesign the whole Funambol, don't you?)
>> When it is about HA and low performance we can consider MySQL Cluster or
>> we can think about active/passive fail-over clustering which is
>> typically the used solution in such cases.
>> Just a little site information: InnoDB is NOT the only Storage Engine
>> which knows about Foreign Key constraints. PBXT knows about it as well,
>> and possibly a few others as well...
>> If you are interested we can assist you in a Architecture and Design
>> Engagement or a MySQL Cluster Jump-start.
>> Best regards,
>> Oli
> Oli,
> Thanks for the information, much appreciated.  A little history, we have
> been working with MySQL itself for a number of years as our database for
> our ISP services such as web hosting and user management.  You are correct
> in assuming that we are looking for an HA solution, which needs to serve
> two major purposes.  First being the database for a redesigned user
> management system, and secondly the database from which our clusters of
> postfix and dovecot machines do their authentication queries.  To give you
> an idea of how much load we are expecting, we currently server 1.1 million
> POP3 logins and 350K IMAP4 logins per day, and deliver an average of 250K
> messages per day.  Currently we run all these systems using hashed files,
> and have not tested a MySQL server or cluster to that capacity.
> Over the course of the last week I have read much of the MySQL cluster
> documentation, and I do agree that it is not suitable for large numbers of
> complex joins (hopefully SPJ will have an impact on that) or acting as a
> database for applications that expect a standard mysql server.  Looking at
> our needs I know the vast majority of queries (from postfix and dovecot)
> will be simple primary key lookups, while our user management system will
> have a couple of data mining tasks that will require some more complex
> queries.  We are planning to design a four data node cluster with two
> management nodes, which will act as the primary database for the dovecot
> and postfix authentication lookups.  We then will ship the database via
> replication to a slave server running MySQL server where our new user
> management system will have the ability to execute complex joins and other
> data mining tasks.
> I do know that one of my options is to configure one write server
> replicating to as many read only slaves as needed, but this does not offer
> the true high availability and no single points of failure model we hope to
> achieve.  Another possibility is looking at a third party software (or
> hardware) solution such as Clustrix or scaledb.
> As for Funambol, I have abandoned the software for a lighter SyncML
> server, or possibly writing our own.
> Thanks again,
> Michael

Re: cluster-plain Digest 2 Feb 2011 12:03:32 -0000 Issue 811list3 Feb
  • Re: cluster-plain Digest 2 Feb 2011 12:03:32 -0000 Issue 811Mikael ronström3 Feb
    • Re: cluster-plain Digest 2 Feb 2011 12:03:32 -0000 Issue 811david3 Feb
      • Re: cluster-plain Digest 2 Feb 2011 12:03:32 -0000 Issue 811Johan Andersson3 Feb