The main mailing list for HA clustering in "Clusterlabs Users":
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users.
It's not strictly for any OS, but RHEL/CentOS and SUSE are probably the
most common OSes.
I might recommend starting with this:
https://alteeve.ca/w/History_of_HA_Clustering
The Linux
Thanks for pointing that.
I would like to learn about clustering and HA, so if I have to chose a
service for my testing scenario It will be a radius or a mysql justo to
keep it simple.
Leandro.
On 10/10/15 18:49, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/10/2015 2:06 PM, Leandro wrote:
So, I would like to
On 10/10/2015 2:06 PM, Leandro wrote:
So, I would like to ask to comunity, which are the new methods for
clustering and get HA and where to get updated documentation.
I contend the appropriate approach to HA should be based on what
services you need to keep available. an HA file server has
-cluster-with-centos-7/
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Leandro"
> To: centos@centos.org
> Sent: Saturday, 10 October, 2015 22:06:38
> Subject: [CentOS] Clustering and ha planning
> Hello , C
Hello , Centos users:
My name is Leandro, I have been using Centos for 4 years and this is the
first post in this mail list.
I would like to study and introduce myself in clustering and high
availability for Centos, currently I have not experience at all about it.
I would like to ask about the n
Hello Fellow CentOS users.
I was hoping to get some information on Pacemaker clusters using OCFS2 on
CentOS 6.x. In my initial attempts to get this to work, I realized that
Pacemaker is packaged much differently on CentOS than it is on Debian or SUSE.
For example, /usr/sbin/dlm_controld.pcmk i
On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Rafał Radecki wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I am currently working for a hosting provider in a 100+ linux hosts'
> environment. We have www, mail HA solutions, as storage we mainly use
> NFS at the moment. We are also using DRBD, Heartbeat, Corosync.
>
> I am now gathering i
On 01/10/2012 02:59 PM, Rafał Radecki wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I am currently working for a hosting provider in a 100+ linux hosts'
> environment. We have www, mail HA solutions, as storage we mainly use
> NFS at the moment. We are also using DRBD, Heartbeat, Corosync.
>
> I am now gathering info to
> I am currently working for a hosting provider in a 100+ linux hosts'
> environment. We have www, mail HA solutions, as storage we mainly use
> NFS at the moment. We are also using DRBD, Heartbeat, Corosync.
>
> I am now gathering info to make a cluster with:
> - two virtualization nodes (active
Hi all.
I am currently working for a hosting provider in a 100+ linux hosts'
environment. We have www, mail HA solutions, as storage we mainly use
NFS at the moment. We are also using DRBD, Heartbeat, Corosync.
I am now gathering info to make a cluster with:
- two virtualization nodes (active mas
Le 16/11/2011 04:09, Tony Schreiner a écrit :
> I recommend you check out ROCKS
>
> http://www.rocksclusters.org
>
> CentOS based clustering with lots of built in goodness.
Hi,
I also recommend Rocks Cluster, that I used on my site. Recently, they
switch to OGS, Open Grid Schduler, the open sour
- Original Message -
| Hey folks,
|
| I just went through the archives trying to find some info on this but
| did not come up with much other than it seems there are a few experts
| here on the list.
|
| I have no experience with clustering and have just taken over a Stem
| Cell Research
On 11/15/2011 09:50 PM, Alan McKay wrote:
> Basically I'd like to get up to speed really quickly on different
> clustering technologies, and maybe even set up a CentOS (or
> Scientific) based cluster in a sandbox to play with.
>
> I guess - looking for reading to get up to speed on clustering, and
On 11/15/11 7:09 PM, Tony Schreiner wrote:
> I recommend you check out ROCKS
>
> http://www.rocksclusters.org
awhile back I setup a little test OSCAR cluster, which used CentOS, and
found it quite nicely packaged and easy to deploy with a rich set of
tools... but I have no idea where its gone
I recommend you check out ROCKS
http://www.rocksclusters.org
CentOS based clustering with lots of built in goodness.
Tony Schreiner
On 11/15/2011 9:50 PM, Alan McKay wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I just went through the archives trying to find some info on this but
> did not come up with much other t
Hey folks,
I just went through the archives trying to find some info on this but
did not come up with much other than it seems there are a few experts
here on the list.
I have no experience with clustering and have just taken over a Stem
Cell Research Lab that has a Grid Engine cluster. I have n
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Les Mikesell
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:37 AM
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Clustering apache
>
> On 2/17/2010 10:27 AM, Dan B
On 2/17/2010 10:27 AM, Dan Burkland wrote:
> I’m a greenhorn when it comes to clustering in RHEL/CentOS and recently
> setup an active/standby clustering using Apache & Heartbeat. It seems to
> be a good entry step into clustering however after testing it I was
> disappointed in that the resource m
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 10:27 -0600, Dan Burkland wrote:
> I’m a greenhorn when it comes to clustering in RHEL/CentOS and
> recently setup an active/standby clustering using Apache & Heartbeat.
> It seems to be a good entry step into clustering however after testing
> it I was disappointed in that th
I'm a greenhorn when it comes to clustering in RHEL/CentOS and recently setup
an active/standby clustering using Apache & Heartbeat. It seems to be a good
entry step into clustering however after testing it I was disappointed in that
the resource manager does not start httpd on node2 if httpd on
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Somewhere along the line they switch from a CentOS base to rpath for
> better package management, but I haven't followed them since.
Yeah the version I had at the time was based on rPath, I think
they changed to something else yet again in the past year or
so.
> trusted it
On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Drew wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. Looks like VM would be the way to go. I have
>> been
>> looking at Vmware and virtualbox. Would you recommend Vmware over
>> virtualbox?
>
>> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
>> Really do not want to have to budget f
On 2/5/2010 10:04 AM, nate wrote:
>
>> Have you investigated any of the mostly-software alternatives for this like
>> openfiler, nexentastor, etc., or rolling your own iscsi server out of
>> opensolaris or centos?
>
> I have and it depends on your needs. I ran Openfiler a couple years
> ago with ES
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
>> ESXi is free, but usable on one system. ESX is the full-blown version,
>> costs, and I *think* comes with the console... which, for some unknown
>> reason, is WinDoze *only*.
>>
>> I believe both can be administered via browser.
>
> maybe
On 2/5/2010 10:12 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> ESXi is free, but usable on one system. ESX is the full-blown version,
>>> costs, and I *think* comes with the console... which, for some unknown
>>> reason, is WinDoze *only*.
>>>
>>> I believe both can be administered via browser.
>>
>> maybe beca
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Except that VMware is *based* on RHEL. Why would you *not* have a
> Linux-based console?
A common misconception. The linux based console is a VM in itself,
and is used for management purposes only, it runs on top of the
hypervisor.
nate
__
> Except that VMware is *based* on RHEL. Why would you *not* have a
> Linux-based console?
The best is to have a cross platform console because there a lot of
linux sysadmin (including me) who run linux as a primary desktop OS
--
Athmane Madjoudj
___
Ce
>> ESXi is free, but usable on one system. ESX is the full-blown version,
>> costs, and I *think* comes with the console... which, for some unknown
>> reason, is WinDoze *only*.
>>
>> I believe both can be administered via browser.
>
> maybe because there are more windows users that Linux and / or
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Have you investigated any of the mostly-software alternatives for this like
> openfiler, nexentastor, etc., or rolling your own iscsi server out of
> opensolaris or centos?
I have and it depends on your needs. I ran Openfiler a couple years
ago with ESX and it worked ok. The
On Fri, February 5, 2010 9:57 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
> nate wrote:
>> Bo Lynch wrote:
>>
>>> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
>>> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not
>>> have to.
>>
>> Depends on the hardware, ideally esxi, though it is very
>> picky
On Fri, February 5, 2010 9:55 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Bo Lynch wrote:
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have any experience with KVM or OpenVZ? If I can stick to
>> something that is not proprietary that would be great. I didn't realize
>> there were so many options. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
>>
nate wrote:
> Bo Lynch wrote:
>
>> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
>> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not have to.
>
> Depends on the hardware, ideally esxi, though it is very
> picky about hardware.
>
> And you should budget for it, storage will b
Bo Lynch wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have any experience with KVM or OpenVZ? If I can stick to
> something that is not proprietary that would be great. I didn't realize
> there were so many options. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
> Bo
Philosophically, I don't see how running on ESXi virtual
> ESXi is free, but usable on one system. ESX is the full-blown version,
> costs, and I *think* comes with the console... which, for some unknown
> reason, is WinDoze *only*.
>
> I believe both can be administered via browser.
maybe because there are more windows users that Linux and / or Mac OS
X
>> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
>> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not have
>> to.
>> Thanks for any info.
>
> Here is a comparison of VMware ESXi and Server notice that server
> doesn't cost money.
>
> http://www.vmware.com/products/server/faqs.ht
Bo Lynch sent a missive on 2010-02-05:
> On Fri, February 5, 2010 9:02 am, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
>>> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
>>> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not
>>> have to.
>>> Thanks for any info.
>>
>> Here is a comparison of VMware
>
> > Athmane Madjoudj
>
> Does anyone have any experience with KVM or OpenVZ? If I can stick to
> something that is not proprietary that would be great. I didn't realize
> there were so many options. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
> Bo
>
> ___
>
>
> Does anyone have any experience with KVM or OpenVZ? If I can stick to
> something that is not proprietary that would be great. I didn't realize
> there were so many options. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
> Bo
KVM is easier (like VMware) than OpenVZ when using virt-manager to
manage vi
Bo Lynch wrote:
>
>
> When you talk about the free version are your referring to Vmware server
> or is there a free version of Esxi? The website is a little misleading
> with "free trail" and such.
You have to register, but the way it works is that you download a full-featured
ESXi demo with a 3
On Fri, February 5, 2010 9:02 am, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
>> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
>> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not have
>> to.
>> Thanks for any info.
>
> Here is a comparison of VMware ESXi and Server notice that server
> doesn't cos
Drew wrote:
>> When you talk about the free version are your referring to Vmware server
>> or is there a free version of Esxi? The website is a little misleading
>> with "free trail" and such.
>
> ESXi is free to use. ESX / vSphere is the paid version.
A common confusion point. While there is a fr
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 07:57 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Bo Lynch wrote:
> >
> >>
> > Currently we are doing the low tech method. Daily and weekly backups both
> > onsite and off along with RAID and all that other good stuff. I was just
> > wondering if clustering was a better way of handling thi
> When you talk about the free version are your referring to Vmware server
> or is there a free version of Esxi? The website is a little misleading
> with "free trail" and such.
ESXi is free to use. ESX / vSphere is the paid version.
--
Drew
"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be
Bo Lynch wrote:
>
> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not have to.
> Thanks for any info.
There is a free version of ESXi - which is really the same as the paid version
with the cluster management and vmotion functio
> Thanks for the info. Looks like VM would be the way to go. I have been
> looking at Vmware and virtualbox. Would you recommend Vmware over
> virtualbox?
> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not have to.
I know some w
> Bo Lynch wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Currently we are doing the low tech method. Daily and weekly backups
>> both
>> onsite and off along with RAID and all that other good stuff. I was just
>> wondering if clustering was a better way of handling things. Thanks for
>> the info.
>
> If you are looking at VMwa
> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not have to.
> Thanks for any info.
Here is a comparison of VMware ESXi and Server notice that server
doesn't cost money.
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/faqs.html
both are p
Bo Lynch wrote:
> Whats your thoughts on Vmware server over esxi?
> Really do not want to have to budget for Virtualization if I do not have to.
Depends on the hardware, ideally esxi, though it is very
picky about hardware.
And you should budget for it, storage will be a big concern if
you want
Bo Lynch wrote:
>
>>
> Currently we are doing the low tech method. Daily and weekly backups both
> onsite and off along with RAID and all that other good stuff. I was just
> wondering if clustering was a better way of handling things. Thanks for
> the info.
If you are looking at VMware, ESX(i) is
On Fri, February 5, 2010 8:03 am, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
>> On Thu, February 4, 2010 6:18 pm, Drew wrote:
Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out
or
district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and so
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
> On Thu, February 4, 2010 6:18 pm, Drew wrote:
>>> Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out or
>>> district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of
>>> redundancy
>>> would be nice.
>>
>> I'm in the proces
On Thu, February 4, 2010 6:34 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 2/4/2010 3:17 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
>>
>> Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out or
>> district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of
>> redundancy
>> would be nice.
>> Will clustering not work
On Thu, February 4, 2010 6:18 pm, Drew wrote:
>> Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out or
>> district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of
>> redundancy
>> would be nice.
>
> I'm in the process of going through something like that right now. The
> s
Hi,
> On 2/4/2010 3:17 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
> >
> > Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out
> or
> > district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of
> redundancy
> > would be nice.
> > Will clustering not work with certain apps? We have a couple mysql
>
On 2/4/2010 3:17 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
>
> Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out or
> district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of redundancy
> would be nice.
> Will clustering not work with certain apps? We have a couple mysql dbases,
> oracle datab
> Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out or
> district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of redundancy
> would be nice.
I'm in the process of going through something like that right now. The
solution we're pursuing is to virtualize our existing phys
Bo Lynch wrote:
> Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out or
> district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of redundancy
> would be nice.
> Will clustering not work with certain apps? We have a couple mysql dbases,
> oracle database, smb shares, nfs,
On Thu, February 4, 2010 4:09 pm, Drew wrote:
Just wanted to get the lists opinion on clustering and what project to
use. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
>>>
>>> There are all types of clustering. What are you looking to do?
>>
>> I guess the main objective would be av
>>> Just wanted to get the lists opinion on clustering and what project to
>>> use. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
>>> Thanks
>>
>> There are all types of clustering. What are you looking to do?
>
> I guess the main objective would be availability.
We need more information then just an "Av
On Thu, February 4, 2010 3:31 pm, Kwan Lowe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
>> Just wanted to get the lists opinion on clustering and what project to
>> use. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
>> Thanks
>
> There are all types of clustering. What are you looking to do?
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
> Just wanted to get the lists opinion on clustering and what project to
> use. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
There are all types of clustering. What are you looking to do?
___
CentOS mai
Just wanted to get the lists opinion on clustering and what project to
use. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
--
Bo Lynch
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks for your reply
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, J Potter wrote:
>
> Look at pound: http://www.apsis.ch/pound/
>
> If you are concerned about traffic volume, you might consider running
> squid as a transparent proxy in front of pound. I.e.:
>
> request -> squid -> pound -> apache
>
> Where
Sergej Kandyla wrote:
>>>
>>> In the preforking mode apache create a child on each incoming request,
>>> so it's too much expensive for resource usage.
>>>
>> Have you actually measured this? Preforking apache doesn't fork per
>> request, it forks enough instances to accept the concurrent
Les Mikesell пишет:
> Sergej Kandyla wrote:
>
>> nginx http_proxy module is universal complex solution. Also apache
>> working in prefork mode (in general cases), I don't know does
>> mod_jk\mod_proxy_ajp works in the worker-MPM mode...
>>
>> In the preforking mode apache create a child on eac
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:50:34 -0800
Florin Andrei wrote:
> I was just curious about performance comparisons between different types
> of load balancers in general.
It's hard to say ... you usualy use load balancers to achieve higher
availability and put as little as possible in the way of traffi
J Potter wrote:
>
> It's hard to get very specific about what's best for your setup
> without know the specifics of things like the data sync needs on the
> apache nodes, so take all of this with a grain of salt -- or as a
> default starting place.
I did not ask anything related to my setup
Les Mikesell wrote:
> It may be, but I'd like to see some real-world measurements. Most of
> the discussions about more efficient approaches seem to use straw-man
> arguments that aren't realistic about the way apache works or timings of
> a few static pages under ideal conditions that don't mat
Sergej Kandyla wrote:
>
> nginx http_proxy module is universal complex solution. Also apache
> working in prefork mode (in general cases), I don't know does
> mod_jk\mod_proxy_ajp works in the worker-MPM mode...
>
> In the preforking mode apache create a child on each incoming request,
> so it
Look at pound: http://www.apsis.ch/pound/
If you are concerned about traffic volume, you might consider running
squid as a transparent proxy in front of pound. I.e.:
request -> squid -> pound -> apache
Where squid will return the response for everything marked as
cacheable and still fresh;
Les Mikesell пишет:
> Sergej Kandyla wrote:
>
>>
>> No, nginx could serve any kind of content via ngx_http_proxy_module
>> module http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxHttpProxyModule
>> For example I'm using nginx as reverse proxy for tomcat
>> servers\applications.
>>
>
> Is there some a
Sergej Kandyla wrote:
>
> No, nginx could serve any kind of content via ngx_http_proxy_module
> module http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxHttpProxyModule
> For example I'm using nginx as reverse proxy for tomcat
> servers\applications.
Is there some advantage to this over apache with mod_jk?
Florin Andrei пишет:
> Sergej Kandyla wrote:
>
>> apache is good as backend server for dynamic applications.
>> You could use something like nginx, haproxy as frontend for balancing
>> multiple backend servers.
>> I'm using nginx. This light web server could serve many thousand
>> concurrent c
Rainer Duffner пишет:
> Sergej Kandyla schrieb:
>
>> Hi,
>> apache is good as backend server for dynamic applications.
>> You could use something like nginx, haproxy as frontend for balancing
>> multiple backend servers.
>> I'm using nginx. This light web server could serve many thousand
>> co
John R Pierce schrieb:
> Anto Marky wrote:
>
>> If I have my content in a centralised system like amazon s3, will I
>> have problem syncronizing?
>>
>
> s3 is an example of a DE-centralized distributed cloud system.
>
> by the simple fact that you're asking such a vague and generic questio
Anto Marky wrote:
> If I have my content in a centralised system like amazon s3, will I
> have problem syncronizing?
s3 is an example of a DE-centralized distributed cloud system.
by the simple fact that you're asking such a vague and generic question,
I'd hazard to guess, yes, you will have pr
Hi,
Thanks for your reply,
If I have my content in a centralised system like amazon s3, will I have
problem syncronizing?
Thanks and Regards
Marky
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Sergej Kandyla wrote:
> Anto Marky пишет:
> > Hi,
> > I am new to clustering and loadbalancing in apache, What
Sergej Kandyla wrote:
> apache is good as backend server for dynamic applications.
> You could use something like nginx, haproxy as frontend for balancing
> multiple backend servers.
> I'm using nginx. This light web server could serve many thousand
> concurrent connections! It works great!
In a
Sergej Kandyla schrieb:
>
> Hi,
> apache is good as backend server for dynamic applications.
> You could use something like nginx, haproxy as frontend for balancing
> multiple backend servers.
> I'm using nginx. This light web server could serve many thousand
> concurrent connections! It works gr
Anto Marky пишет:
> Hi,
> I am new to clustering and loadbalancing in apache, What is best way
> of doing it? How do I do the clustering and what tools do I need to
> use? Do I have those tools, I use CentOS , Do i have any tools in
> CenOs which comes default in it? And how do I do apache load
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Anto Marky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Fajar Priyanto wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Anto Marky
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > I am new to clustering and loadbalancing in apache, What is best way of
>> > do
Hi,
Thanks for the link.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM, David Hrbáč wrote:
> Fajar Priyanto napsal(a):
> >
> > This is a good start to give you some overview:
> > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-ha/index.html
>
> Then, you can go here:
> http://code.google.com/p/ath/
Hi,
Thanks for the link.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Fajar Priyanto wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Anto Marky wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am new to clustering and loadbalancing in apache, What is best way of
> > doing it? How do I do the clustering and what tools do I need to use? Do
Fajar Priyanto napsal(a):
>
> This is a good start to give you some overview:
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-ha/index.html
Then, you can go here:
http://code.google.com/p/ath/
David Hrbáč
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Anto Marky wrote:
> Hi,
> I am new to clustering and loadbalancing in apache, What is best way of
> doing it? How do I do the clustering and what tools do I need to use? Do I
> have those tools, I use CentOS , Do i have any tools in CenOs which comes
> default in i
Hi,
I am new to clustering and loadbalancing in apache, What is best way of
doing it? How do I do the clustering and what tools do I need to use? Do I
have those tools, I use CentOS , Do i have any tools in CenOs which comes
default in it? And how do I do apache load balancing? should I rely on
apa
On Dec 12, 2007 4:46 PM, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Shields wrote:
> > I just got my master-master servers setup and we're running
> > mysql-server-5.0.48-1.el4.centos. I should also mention that Meetup
> > presentation was given by Patrick Galbraith who used to work for MySQ
Matt Shields wrote:
I just got my master-master servers setup and we're running
mysql-server-5.0.48-1.el4.centos. I should also mention that Meetup
presentation was given by Patrick Galbraith who used to work for MySQL
and was responsible for adding replication to MySQL.
sounds good, will you
I'm just beginning to consider using the Clustering available with
CentOS. We are going to spec out some new hardware, and after
reading most of the Clustering manuals, I have a small question
about MySQL.
I would like to run High Availability MySQL, in other words,
similar to how y
On Dec 11, 2007 12:42 PM, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Shields wrote:
> > the code). But I saw a presentation at the Boston MySQL Meetup.com
> > group about how to do master-master in mysql 5. We're about to
> > implement this in the next few weeks. If it's done this way both
After all the discussions regarding MySQL-style clustering (multi-
master etc), what about a "classic" HA cluster for MySQL? Since the
OP mentioned high availability, wouldn't the simplest solution be
failover clustering (ie. single master with failover, shared
storage, fenced nodes etc) v
Luke Dudney wrote:
After all the discussions regarding MySQL-style clustering (multi-master
etc), what about a "classic" HA cluster for MySQL? Since the OP
mentioned high availability, wouldn't the simplest solution be failover
clustering (ie. single master with failover, shared storage, fenced
On 11/12/2007 17:18, Steve Campbell wrote:
I'm just beginning to consider using the Clustering available with
CentOS. We are going to spec out some new hardware, and after reading
most of the Clustering manuals, I have a small question about MySQL.
I would like to run High Availability MySQL,
On Dec 11, 2007 6:10 PM, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Shields wrote:
> >
> > If this were master-slave, I'd probably do an LVM Snapshot and get a
> > fresh copy of the master db. The same could be done for
> > master-master.
> >
>
> has a live lvm-snapshot ever worked for you a
Ryan Ordway wrote:
( i think were just tryign to use mysql like too much of a real
database, while we seem to have clearly outgrown its capabilities :( )
I think the MySQL AB folks would object to that statement. ;-)
you mean the folks who scoffed at the idea transactions were important,
or
Ryan Ordway wrote:
>> Ryan Ordway wrote:
>>> Specifically, what makes you say it is a 5.1 only feature? What does 5.1
>>> give you that makes it easier than 5.0?
>>
>> specifically - rbr
> Ahh, true.
>
>> ( i think were just tryign to use mysql like too much of a real
>> database, while we seem to
Ryan Ordway wrote:
> The problem is you'll have some inconsistency between your master A's
> view of the database and the master B's view. You lose any changes to
> the data on master B. It would be nice to be able to merge any changes
> from B that hadn't made their way to master A yet. At that po
Matt Shields wrote:
>
> If this were master-slave, I'd probably do an LVM Snapshot and get a
> fresh copy of the master db. The same could be done for
> master-master.
>
has a live lvm-snapshot ever worked for you as a real move-data-around
policy ? you would, at the very least, need to flush i
On Dec 11, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Ryan Ordway wrote:
Specifically, what makes you say it is a 5.1 only feature? What
does 5.1
give you that makes it easier than 5.0?
specifically - rbr
Ahh, true.
( i think were just tryign to use mysql like too much of a real
database
Ryan Ordway wrote:
> Specifically, what makes you say it is a 5.1 only feature? What does 5.1
> give you that makes it easier than 5.0?
specifically - rbr
we've had load of issues with mysql-5.0 recently ( i think were just
tryign to use mysql like too much of a real database, while we seem to
ha
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
