On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Uwe Kastens wrote:
>>> The problem with master master for
>>> mysql is, that you have to resync each time you are dropping a table, a
>>> view etc.pp.
No you don't.
When setup correctly, all SQL statement on one node will be executed
on the other node as well. Tha
If you require synchronous replication and your queries are conducive to it
there is MySQL Cluster. You might get some of the functionality you want
with DRBD (but write performance hits) and MySQL, which is supported
officially by MySQL, or through the use of circular replication with a pair
of ma
>
> Yes, man.
>
> We know the PostgreSQL solution does not work. ORACLE is expensive. MySQL
> is one master and serveral slaves.
>
You can set up MySQL as master1-slave2 <==> slave1-master2. That works
sort of like master-master replication.
Ivan Kalik
Kalik Informatika ISP
-
List info/subscribe
Santiago,
> Yes, man.
> We know the PostgreSQL solution does not work. ORACLE is expensive.
> MySQL is one master and serveral slaves.
I don't think that the price of oracle is the problem. Without 3rd party
there is no way to have a real cluster solution.
>
> Do you know another master-master
Yes, man.
We know the PostgreSQL solution does not work. ORACLE is expensive. MySQL is
one master and serveral slaves.
Do you know another master-master database management system which is cheap?
Santiago
> Ok. That is true. In that case you are talking about loosing money if
> the
Michael,
>>> supposedly a PostgreSQL master-master replication package
>> I think there might be much more read access then write access by using
>> a DB backend for RADIUS. If so it might be enough to have one master to
>> write and many slaves to read from. Or many master with a kind of sql
>> p
Am Mittwoch, 22. April 2009 15:20:11 schrieb Uwe Kastens:
> Hello,
>
> >>> I could be wrong, there might be one we've missed. If so, i'd love to
> >>> know as well, as master-master replication would make our lives easier
> >>> too :)
> >>
> >> What is your need? More Read than write? Mabye think a
Hello,
>>> I could be wrong, there might be one we've missed. If so, i'd love to
>>> know as well, as master-master replication would make our lives easier
>>> too :)
>>
>> What is your need? More Read than write? Mabye think about mysql proxy
>> or some free cluster option.
> First the disclaimer
Am Mittwoch, 22. April 2009 11:54:00 schrieb Meyers, Dan:
>
>
> > I use a PostgreSQL DB form my three AAA server and the DB is enough
> > quick for serveral request per second.
>
> Aah. We were wanting to handle 100 or so requests a second. Postgres
> might well have done this, but we wanted room
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Santiago Balaguer García
wrote:
> However, I am looking for a (free) master-master DB, and the replication in
> postgres crashes. And the problem in MySQL it was told before.
>
> I admit suggestions for a BETTER free DB.
MySQL can do master-master replication just
Uwe Kastens wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Meyers, Dan schrieb:
>>
>>> I use a PostgreSQL DB form my three AAA server and the DB is enough
>>> quick for serveral request per second.
>
>> I could be wrong, there might be one we've missed. If so, i'd love to
>> know as well, as master-master replication woul
Hi,
Meyers, Dan schrieb:
>
>> I use a PostgreSQL DB form my three AAA server and the DB is enough
>> quick for serveral request per second.
>
> I could be wrong, there might be one we've missed. If so, i'd love to
> know as well, as master-master replication would make our lives easier
> too :
> I use a PostgreSQL DB form my three AAA server and the DB is enough
> quick for serveral request per second.
Aah. We were wanting to handle 100 or so requests a second. Postgres
might well have done this, but we wanted room for expansion and our
tests with 10'000 requests at ~100 a second showe
> Postgres does supposedly have a version in beta for full master-master
> replication, but every time we've tried to get it running it's crashed
> on us as soon as we tried to actually write any data. Postgres in
> general seemed much slower than MySQL for reading the data we needed as well.
I
gt; To: freeradius-users@lists.freeradius.org
> Subject: RE: failover and load balancing
>
>
> I also believe you're saying that I could load balance, too. In this
> case, auth and accounting could be done on both machines, and I would
> still have one freeradius server in use (prim
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 20:44 +0100, Ivan Kalik wrote:
> Two. One active and other as "hot" standby.
Ok.
> >But, what if I don't want to proxy and only want two freeradius servers
> >that do auth, and two separate servers for accounting?
>
> No need for extra accounting servers. Each server can d
Hi,
Kalik's advices are very good - just to add some words:
Certainly such a failover is achieved on the client side. NAS's have
options to do that. On Cisco VoIP routers e.g.you can do it with the
RADIUS groups. You can have broadcast groups to achieve redundancy -
send the requests to mul
>Anyway, I've been wondering how many servers are required to have a proper
(i.e. no single point of failure) on the freeradius side of things.
Two. One active and other as "hot" standby.
>I know that I can have one freeradius server proxying requests to any
number of authorization and/or accou
18 matches
Mail list logo
