16 messages in com.mysql.lists.mysqlRe: MySQL Replication| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Ian Neubert | 07 Aug 2003 11:26 | |
| Dathan Vance Pattishall | 07 Aug 2003 12:53 | |
| Dathan Vance Pattishall | 07 Aug 2003 12:58 | |
| Ian Neubert | 07 Aug 2003 12:59 | |
| Dathan Vance Pattishall | 07 Aug 2003 13:33 | |
| Ian Neubert | 07 Aug 2003 14:01 | |
| Jeremy Zawodny | 07 Aug 2003 14:52 | |
| Ian Neubert | 07 Aug 2003 15:22 | |
| Jeremy Zawodny | 07 Aug 2003 15:38 | |
| Adam Nelson | 08 Aug 2003 09:09 | |
| System | 11 Aug 2003 04:25 | |
| System | 11 Aug 2003 06:22 | |
| yin | 11 Aug 2003 06:51 | |
| Jeremy Zawodny | 11 Aug 2003 12:38 | |
| Ian Neubert | 11 Aug 2003 13:16 | |
| Michael Conlen | 11 Aug 2003 18:16 |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL Replication![]() |
|---|---|
| From: | Jeremy Zawodny (Jer...@Zawodny.com) |
| Date: | 08/07/2003 02:52:47 PM |
| List: | com.mysql.lists.mysql |
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:00:12PM -0700, Ian Neubert wrote:
I was trying to design it so that the slaves wouldn't know they had connected to a different master, as they both masters would have the same IP address that gets failed over based on the Linux Virtual Server software and VRRP (like heartbeat from Linux-HA).
That path is a very, very, very difficult one.
How can you absolutely guarantee that each master's binlog will be indentical in name, size, and content?
If you can't, this scenario really falls apart.
(I've suggested enhancements to MySQL that would fix this but don't know if they're terribly high on the priority list...)
Jeremy
-- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <Jer...@Zawodny.com> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/
MySQL 4.0.13: up 6 days, processed 212,501,412 queries (399/sec. avg)




