Re: Wide area MySQL Cluster - Geert Vanderkelen - com.mysql.lists.cluster

9 messages in com.mysql.lists.clusterRe: Wide area MySQL Cluster

From	Sent On	Attachments
Michael Gruetzner	22 Nov 2007 01:48
Luis Motta Campos	22 Nov 2007 02:11
Martin Skold	22 Nov 2007 02:44
Luis Motta Campos	22 Nov 2007 03:56
Rayson Ho	22 Nov 2007 11:02
Eric Frazier	22 Nov 2007 11:13
Geert Vanderkelen	23 Nov 2007 02:43
Martin Skold	23 Nov 2007 04:36
Martin Skold	23 Nov 2007 04:45

Subject:	Re: Wide area MySQL Cluster
From:	Geert Vanderkelen (gee...@mysql.com)
Date:	11/23/2007 02:43:14 AM
List:	com.mysql.lists.cluster

On Nov 22, 2007, at 20:13 , Eric Frazier wrote:

Hi,

I assumed 1. 2 is very cool, but what is the advantage of 2 over doing something with replication between clusters like with
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/mysql-cluster-replication-two-channels.html

You don't want to fail over a complete site when only a data node is down. Otherwise there is no point using MySQL Cluster as one can failover with conventional storage engines then too using MySQL Replication.

Failover from one cluster to another cluster is just in case of disaster, like the building is on fire or something.

-Geert

Rayson Ho wrote:

I read "MySQL Clustering" from MySQL Press a few months ago. It has answers to some of your questions: 1) usually it's the latency that kills performance, you can see the section "Physical Factors" for the bandwidth/latency needed. The whole chapter is available online: http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/ mysql_clustering_ch5.html 2) split-brain: MySQL cluster will warn you if you only have 2 nodes. The min number of nodes required/recommended is 3. And if the network communication breaks, then the side with the majority of nodes would take over. Rayson