Hi Terry, On Thursday, 22 June 2017, at 13:23:35 BST, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > That's sounding as if you'd have a database server sitting on > the network with all the slave and the master being its > clients, sending SQL to modify tables. And if the slaves are > writing to the tables, and the master is trailing behind, > reading them, then you're (mis-)using the database as message > queues. Perhaps a message queue would be a better fit.
> As Tim said, it sounds like overkill, and adds another major > piece to understand, configure, monitoring, debug, ... A > message queue, like RabbitMQ, or zero.mq, also has those > problems given your simple needs. I think Ralph has hit the nail on the head with these two paragraphs. My thoughts were much the same, but not clear enough in my mind to be able to articulate them this well! Patrick -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2017-07-04 20:00 Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ New thread: mailto:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk / CHECK IF YOU'RE REPLYING Reporting bugs well: http://goo.gl/4Xue / TO THE LIST OR THE AUTHOR
