Re: how to design mysql clusters with 30,000 clients?
Hello Benjamin Pflugmann <benjamin-mysql@pflugmann.de>,
This scenario is fine. But in real life, the circular master-slave
replication will probably cause inconsistency of data among them. I
wish to keep 1 copy of the shared raw data in a storage device and
forget circular master-slave replication. If there is no locking problem
in this scenario, then I can balance the insert/delete/update load onto
every mysql server attached on the shared storage device. Idea?
On Thu, 23 May 2002 16:19:53 +0200
Benjamin Pflugmann <benjamin-mysql@pflugmann.de> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:44:15AM +1200, debianisp@snorks.dyndns.org wrote:
> > At 16:02 22/05/2002 +0800, Patrick Hsieh wrote:
> [...]
> > >1. use 3 or more mysql servers for write/update and more than 5 mysql
> > >servers for read-only. Native mysql replication is applied among them.
> > >In the mysql write servers, use 1 way replication like A->B->C->A to
> > >keep the data consistency. But I am afraid the loss of data, since we
> > >can't take the risk on it, especially when we are relying our billing
> > >system on it.
> >
> > This will not work. MySQL replication does not work like that. With MySQL
> > replication you have one master and all others replicate from it.
> [...]
>
> I beg to differ. This kind of setting is doable since 3.23.26 and even
> mentioned in the manual as circular master-slave relationship:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/R/e/Replication_Features.html
>
> Of course you have to take care of the special properties of this
> configuration.
>
> Regards,
>
> Benjamin.
>
> --
> benjamin-mysql@pflugmann.de
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.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: