That is my question exactly. -----Original Message----- From: Ditto kolankanny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 8:40 AM To: Robinson, Eric; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 1-Way or 2-Way Replication?
Hi all, In this A->B->C->A setup A is master and B is slave. in the same time B is master and C is slave. and C is master and A is slave. that means All are master and slave. then why don`t A--->B---->A in this same thinking i tried it and its working. for the time being it in a test platform and its ok. i don`t know in future it will create any problems or not. i send a mail to this group abou this and a persion in mysql asking same thing, i am waiting for the reply. regards Ditto >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/17/2004 17:15:26 >>> "Robinson, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/05/2004 15:48:12: > >there is no mechanism for propagating slave changes from the slave > >back up to the master... synchronization occurs *only* from master to > >slave (hence the terminology). > > Then why do they call it 2-way replication? Is there such a thing as > master-to-master? I don't think they do. On http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Replication_Intro.html it says: "MySQL 3.23.15 and up features support for one-way replication." A search of the documantation for "2-way" yields nothing. Circular replication is possible. If machines replicate A->B->C->A, each update is tagged wit its originating machine and drops when it replicates rounc. However, this is mainly a load-sharing rather than reliability feature; there are considerable complexities if the same table is updated on more then one machine. Alec -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
