Re: Is mysql 3.2x stable enough for HA requirement?
Hello Jean-Francois Dive <jef@linuxbe.org>,
I have no problem with the robustness of PostgresSQL.
However, does PostgreSQL have built-in replication? If not, how do I
implement high-available PostgreSQL clusters?
In addition, since InnoDB has been stable in MySQL-3.23.49, is InnoDB
ready for production? Is there anyone having very bad experience about
InnoDB?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:16:29 +1000
Jean-Francois Dive <jef@linuxbe.org> wrote:
> i totally agree. I used postgres in prod in several cases and it never
> fall, got stucked or anything. Especially if you need transaction, i think
> postgres is the way to go.., otherwise, text files is a very solid approach
> ;)
>
> JeF
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 07:20:02PM +1200, Dave Watkins wrote:
> > Hi Patrick
> >
> > MySQL replication is only one way in 3.2x so all writes have to be sent to
> > the master server, but the reads can be done from the slaves. If you loose
> > a slave then no big deal round robin DNS alone should take care of that
> > with very little impact, but if you loose the master then you can't perform
> > any writes until it's back up and running.
> >
> > If you can't live with the risk of data loss then question 2 is really
> > irrelevent, and so if most of question 3. InnoDB is the only transaction
> > capable DB format MySQL supports so even if it is slower, what choice do
> > you have? The only question left is: Is it reliable enough for a production
> > environment? Usually when faced with that question I use PostgreSQL.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > At 14:23 1/04/2002 +0800, Patrick Hsieh wrote:
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I am planing to have some woody with mysql-server running on a
> > >mission-critical environment. My criteria is:
> > >
> > >
> > >1. HA requirement:
> > >By using mysql built-in replication, I'd like to have a load-balancing
> > >and fail-over mysql clusters
> > >
> > >2. minimal data loss risk
> > >How much can mysql 3.2x guarentee the minimization of data loss?
> > >
> > >3. InnoDB and MyISAM impact on performance and management?
> > >Since we need transaction, InnoDB is the only choice. Is there any
> > >performance or management impact between InnoDB and MyISAM?
> > >Is InnoDB reliable enough for productive environment?
> > >
> > >Any experience highly appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Patrick Hsieh <pahud@pahud.net>
> > >
> > >GPG public key http://pahud.net/pubkeys/pahudatpahud.gpg
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> > >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > >listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
>
> --
> -> Jean-Francois Dive
> --> jef@linuxbe.org
--
Patrick Hsieh <pahud@pahud.net>
GPG public key http://pahud.net/pubkeys/pahudatpahud.gpg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: