Well, not exactly. I do not own all the databases. Some of them are placed at customers, some of them are at my data warehouse. So, neither NAS or Fibre Channel is a solution in this case.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Jerry Schwartz <je...@gii.co.jp> wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: vegiv...@gmail.com [mailto:vegiv...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Johan > De > >Meersman > >Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 7:27 AM > >To: Kiss Dániel > >Cc: Max Schubert; mysql@lists.mysql.com; replicat...@lists.mysql.com > >Subject: Re: Unique ID's across multiple databases > > > >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 :-) > > > [JS] It sounds like you are trying to protect against a regional disaster. > > This is precisely the type of scenario for which NAS or FibreChannel is > used. > You let the storage medium take care of replication. Typically you'd only > need > two units, perhaps on opposite sides of the country, using FibreChannel > over > IP. > > I've been out of this market (sales/support side) for many years, so I > don't > know what the current technology costs, but if you can afford it that is > the > way to go. It will make your life much simpler. > > > Regards, > > Jerry Schwartz > Global Information Incorporated > 195 Farmington Ave. > Farmington, CT 06032 > > 860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341 > E-mail: je...@gii.co.jp > Web site: www.the-infoshop.com > > > > >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 > > > >
