I suggest we drop the lingo and just say what we mean explicitly: "A cluster may act as both a replication source and destination simultaneously."
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Misty Stanley-Jones < mstanleyjo...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Can I get some consensus on what we should be saying about different > replication types? It's a bit over my head and I don't feel comfortable > making a unilateral decision. > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Michael Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Both clusters are alive, but the terms active/passive means who’s serving > > the data. > > > > Your ‘master’ is the HBase cluster which is r/w and serving data. > > > > Your ‘slave’ is the cluster that is passive or only serving read only > data. > > > > To your point that active/passive may be incorrect because you can read > > from the passive, too. > > > > Peer to Peer may be incorrect in that while both are peers, you’re > > actively writing to one, while the other gets a copy of the data and is > > passive. > > Understanding that in context a HBase cluster can be active for one data > > set and passive for another. > > > > Active/Active would be that I could write to either and there would be > > some form of eventual consistency. > > > > On Nov 28, 2014, at 1:15 AM, Misty Stanley-Jones < > > mstanleyjo...@cloudera.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > I don't think active/passive is what we mean here, since both clusters > > are > > > fully "active" from the perspective of clients, right? The slave > cluster > > is > > > not actually read-only, is it? > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Michael Segel < > > michael_se...@hotmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> master - master? > > >> > > >> Do you mean active - active ? > > >> > > >> replace master and slave with active and passive. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Misty Stanley-Jones < > > >> mstanleyjo...@cloudera.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> I think "master-master" is a term that should be re-thought. It is > not > > >>> really a "type" of replication, but refers to a characteristic of a > > >>> cluster, specifically a cluster which participates in multiple > clusters > > >>> with different roles -- it is a slave in one cluster and a master in > > >>> another cluster. I think with the current terminology, people confuse > > it > > >>> with "cyclical" replication, in which two clusters replicate to each > > >> other, > > >>> and eventually each has all the data from both. > > >>> > > >>> Since master-master in this sense is really not a type of > replication, > > I > > >>> think we should just scrap it. You can have master-slave replication > or > > >>> cyclical replication, or a combination. With master-slave > replication, > > a > > >>> cluster can fulfill both roles at the same time, as long as it is in > > >>> different clusters. This is easy to understand as a sort of recursive > > >>> cascade. > > >>> > > >>> Am I explaining it right, and what do you guys think about changing > our > > >>> terminology? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Misty > > >> > > >> > > > > >
