Hmm, that's a very interesting scenario, indeed. One bad connection will break the chain, though, so in effect you'll be multiplying the disconnecting rate...
I think you'd be better of with a star topology, but MySQL unfortunately only allows ring-types. This is gonna require some good thinking on your part :-) On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kiss Dániel <n...@dinagon.com> wrote: > This is actually more for failover scenarios where databases are spread in > multiple locations with unreliable internet connections. But you want to > keep every single location working even when they are cut off from the > other > databases. The primary purpose is not load distribution. > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegiv...@tuxera.be > >wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Kiss Dániel <n...@dinagon.com> wrote: > > > >> offset + increment thingy is good if you know in advance that you'll > have > >> a > >> limited number of servers. But if you have no idea that you will have 2, > >> 20, > >> or 200 servers in your array in the future, you just can't pick an > optimal > >> > > > > What benefit do you think you will reap from that many masters ? Don't > > forget that every write still has to be done on every server, so you're > not > > actually distributing that load; while for reads you only need simple > > slaves. > > > > > > -- > > Bier met grenadyn > > Is als mosterd by den wyn > > Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel > > Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel > > > -- Bier met grenadyn Is als mosterd by den wyn Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel
