[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
i think that client load-balacer are more Dispatchers than real load balancer.
load balancing in the database side takes care to number of connections, but
also node load. So thisis more real. But this issue is difficult.
No... you're making assumptions. With the two-phase protocol I
developed the nodes cooperate and distribute load and connections. They
also handle failover.
Simply put I can do a better job than hardware balancers because I
already KNOW what MySQL can do. Most load balancers are dumb.
even for oracle with 9iRAC and 10gRAC, load balancing is not completely
controled.
you speak abot load balancing and introduce also the failover notion, which
isnot a load balancing concept. Fail over is difficult because controling it
implies that every node must have the image before of every transaction.
Image?
Failover isn't a load balancing concept? Not according to our hardware
vendor :)
With cache fusion, ora
> cle RAC gives a solution, but assumes failover only fo select
statements. All DML statements are lost if a
> node is lost.
The DML situation here is a tough one. For SELECTS I have no problem
with failover. For DML I would have no problem unless you're in a
transaction.
We don't use transaction and I think they're evil anyway.
Kevin
--
Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator)! - visit http://rojo.com.
See irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want to chat.
Rojo is Hiring! - http://www.rojonetworks.com/JobsAtRojo.html
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA
AIM/YIM - sfburtonator, Web - http://peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
