Rob Gormley wrote:
Short of running two MySQL instances on the same server... What I would
like to do is have a table which exists on disk in InnoDB format, and a
Memory table which clients make requests for.
Lest that sound more convuluted than it really is, the situation is
thus:
Limited (financial) resources client, heavy load on DB server. In order
to offset some of the load, we are able to push some load to another
machine. This data needs to be made available as fast as possible, hence
the memory table, but the local InnoDB table is to lighten the load on
DB restart... We don't want to deluge the primary server with the
synchronisation process... So it was figured that if there's a local
disk based table, that can be synced fairly quickly, and the memory
table can populate off of that, with no hit to the primary server.
Or am I making things way more complicated than they need be?
Rob
Hi -
I've kindof been dealing with the same situation. The solution for me,
was a multi-master setup, whereas machines A and B recognized eachother
as both masters and slaves.
The only time that I've had problems with this, is when using sequential
fields - i.e. auto_increment fields, etc etc. However, there are a few
different solutions to these situations.
Thanks
-dant
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
