Hello Benjamin Pflugmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:44:15AM +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Patrick Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG public key http://pahud.net/pubkeys/pahudatpahud.gpg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]