Hell, yeah. :) Actually, the ID system I described below works quite well according to my tests. I feel very comfortable with it both from primary key size and dynamically increasable database number point of views. What I actually don't like in it is the concatenated unique ID (ID + SID) pairs. To use two fields for primary and foreign keys is not the most convenient to say the least. :) I am just wondering if anyone has any better idea to fulfill the requirements (small index size, dynamically increasable numbe of databases in the array, incremental-like ID's are optimal for the MySQL indexing engine) and avoid this silly drawback. :)
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegiv...@tuxera.be>wrote: > 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 >
