11 messages in com.mysql.lists.clusterRe: Performance with cluster under 5....
FromSent OnAttachments
Dan Trainor24 Feb 2006 14:15 
Dan Trainor24 Feb 2006 14:16 
Kishore Jalleda24 Feb 2006 14:26 
Dan Trainor24 Feb 2006 14:28 
Kishore Jalleda24 Feb 2006 14:48 
Dan Trainor24 Feb 2006 15:01 
Stewart Smith26 Feb 2006 16:00 
Stewart Smith27 Feb 2006 03:45 
Cor...@ SkyVantage03 Mar 2006 09:35 
Jimmy Guerrero03 Mar 2006 09:39 
Cor...@ SkyVantage03 Mar 2006 09:44 
Subject:Re: Performance with cluster under 5.0.18
From:Dan Trainor (da@id-confirm.com)
Date:02/24/2006 03:01:15 PM
List:com.mysql.lists.cluster

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Kishore Jalleda wrote:

Hi Dan, Looks like you are not very inclined towards replication, but have you had a chance to test Multi-Master or a Multi-Master Replication Ring and checked its performance, I have a Dual-Master setup, and the replication is pretty fast ensuring good data consistency, but as you said it's all in the air now and who knows!!!!!

Have a good weekend

Kishore Jalleda

Thanks for the response, Kishore -

Yes, and I agree with you on that point. I understand that Cluster's goal is not speed. Although I'm sure they're working on it, I don't expect Cluster to ever match the speed of a standalone - or even replicating - system.

The reason for using Cluster in this implementation is to ensure data consistency throughout the database, where I can distribute reads and writes. My testing, and studies, have shown that although replication is quite a bit faster, it does not provide the data consistancy guarantee that I require - even with a multi-master setup.

Who knows - it's still up in the air now ;)

Thanks! - -dant -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD/4jBdJpmX+LLzdoRAlWoAKCIhhiOLxjUu4qWmT0EviD1A3+5HwCfa5vf SyfYCPSdGfh/2cZaTDMHpVY= =8oyK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2/24/06, Dan Trainor <da@id-confirm.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Kishore Jalleda wrote:

Yes I do agree that some tuning might increase the performance of the cluster a bit, but my guess is not by a whole lot, and also as I said in an earlier thread that a cluster would not necessarily give you speed ( a single mysql instance would definitely outperform a cluster for speed ---obviously coz of lesser overhead) but a cluster would give you scalability, basically it increases your concurrency at which you can service clients, so a cluster may not be a good option in your case, I would suggest that you use replication instead and have multiple slaves and distribute the load, if you have the resources to do that ......

Kishore Jalleda

On 2/24/06, Dan Trainor <da@id-confirm.com> wrote: Oh yeah -

It looks like this thread was one of the more helpful in explaining a few things:

http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?25,34915,34915#msg-34915

Thanks to Josh for his feedback, that helped a lot. Unfortunately the named resolution for that problem, is not helping me.

Thanks! -dant

- -- MySQL Cluster Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/cluster To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/cluster?unsub=kjal@gmail.com

Hello, Kishore -

Yes, I have done extensive testing with multi-master, and it is impressive. However, I don't believe that it carries the scalability that Cluster has, which is why I was interested in cluster.

You have a good weekend, too. Thanks.

- -dant -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD/5BSdJpmX+LLzdoRAjUaAJ40HGx9uS/DVDlt333mwKLsSlliQQCghsJv Ie69UUxFxipaGIeZqHWd9OA= =ei6n -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----