RE: step-by-step replication on MySQL 5.1.x

I'm not sure if this is Aslan's situation, and it's not mine either, but a hypothetical.

What if an organization has offices on four separate continents, and needs to have a local master server on each continent, but also needs to be able to retrieve and update data from each of the other continents. Wouldn't a multi-master ring configuration be more appropriate in terms of access times and latency? Or would you suggest still as single master server to which all writes are directed, and local slaves on each continent (which could then server further slaves)?

Just curious,
Raymond
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 13:10 -0700, Rick James wrote:
> Master-slave is no slower. And the failure cases are arguably more
> manageable.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aslan Carlos [mailto:aslan@digirati.com.br]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:21 AM
> > To: Rick James
> > Cc: replication@lists.mysql.com
> > Subject: RE: step-by-step replication on MySQL 5.1.x
> >
> > Ring because I need multi-master and each one need has all information
> > on the ring quickly, each server of ring is a master server on one
> > farm.
> >
> > About the problem with field auto_increment, we'll use key with
> > two-parts, (id , server_id ) as key.
> >
> > I'll try explain one problem that I find using mysql replication in
> > ring.
> >
> > Multi-master ( 4 servers ) replication ring working perfectly, we are
> > using a procedures each master to change the MASTER if they dies.
> > If one master was removed because network problems, and this server
> > removed receives some changes and the data in ring receives some
> > changes. When the network's connection is fixed, this server removed
> > cannot back to the ring because don't have the same data in masters on
> > ring... understand ? I'll have inconsistency of data. :s
> >
> > Ring Work perfectly
> > .___.
> > | |
> > |___|
> > ' '
> >
> > One master dies, and your slave change to another master, this master
> > removed receives one change in your local systems.. starts the
> > problem . :(
> > .__.
> > | /
> > |/
> > ' '
> >
> >
> > I'm looking for a solution in replication to do all data is
> > readable quickly in all masters with multi-masters writable.
> > They'll use fast connections
> > like between 10Mbit/s to 150Mbit/s, with Link SLA of 99.97%.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Aslan Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 09:36 -0700, Rick James wrote:
> > > Why a ring? Several possible answers and problems...
> > >
> > > Three masters in a ring -- If one dies and cannot be
> > restarted, you have a
> > > replication mess that is hard to unravel.
> > >
> > > Multi-master (2 or 3) does NOT buy any additional
> > performance in inserts --
> > > all inserts have to go to all machines eventually.
> > >
> > > Multi-master has procedural hassles with auto_increment
> > (use offset; don't
> > > depend on monotonicity; etc) and other unique keys.
> > >
> > > For scaling readonly access, use plain slaves.
> > >
> > > Dual-master, with only one writable at a time, provides a
> > high degree of
> > > failover / BCP / recovery / etc. But you need slaves also.
> > The machines
> > > should be in geographically distinct places (don't want a
> > flood/earthquake
> > > to take out your whole system).
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Aslan Carlos [mailto:aslan@digirati.com.br]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:13 AM
> > > > To: Rick James
> > > > Cc: replication@lists.mysql.com
> > > > Subject: RE: step-by-step replication on MySQL 5.1.x
> > > >
> > > > I don't know, I want know this.
> > > >
> > > > I'm making a new project. I'll build a configuration of
> > replication in
> > > > circle using MySQL 5.1.x, ( called too as replication ring ).
> > > > There many
> > > > problems to do this configuration.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyone here are using a replication ring or used one day?
> > Did have any
> > > > problem using this configuration?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > best regard,
> > > > Aslan Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 08:59 -0700, Rick James wrote:
> > > > > Are there any differences? Maybe having to do with
> > > > row-based replication,
> > > > > but that is optional.
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Aslan Carlos [mailto:aslan@digirati.com.br]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:19 PM
> > > > > > To: replication@lists.mysql.com
> > > > > > Subject: step-by-step replication on MySQL 5.1.x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm looking for papers that describe step-by-step the
> > > > replication
> > > > > > process in the MySQL version 5.1.x, like was described in the
> > > > > > book 'High
> > > > > > performace MySQL', but there just talks the 3.23 and 4.0.x.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks in advance.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Aslan Carlos de M. Ramos
> > > > > > Senior Network Administrator
> > > > > > K8 Networks, Digirati Networks , Hostnet Web hosting
> > > > > > Phone : +55(21)2233-5950 tie-line:29
> > > > > > Mobile : +55(21)9989-4932
> > > > > > Skype : aslancarlos
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

-- 
MySQL Replication Mailing List
For list archives: 
http://lists.mysql.com/replication
To unsubscribe:    
http://lists.mysql.com/replication?unsub=lists@pantek.com