David Carter wrote:
5. Active/Active
designate one of the boxes as primary and identify all items in the
datastore that absolutly must not be subject to race conditions
between the two boxes (message UUID for example). In addition to
implementing the replication needed for #1 modify all
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, David Lang wrote:
here is the problem.
you have a new message created on both servers at the same time. how do you
allocate the UID without any possibility of stepping on each other?
With a new UIDvalidity you can choose any ordering you like. Of course one
of the two
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, David Lang wrote:
assiming that the simplest method would cost ~$3000 to code I would make a
wild guess that the ballpark figures would be
1. active/passive without automatic failover $3k
2. active/passive with automatic failover (limited to two nodes or withing a
murder
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, David Carter wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, David Lang wrote:
assiming that the simplest method would cost ~$3000 to code I would make a
wild guess that the ballpark figures would be
1. active/passive without automatic failover $3k
2. active/passive with automatic failover
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Paul Dekkers wrote:
David Carter wrote:
5. Active/Active
designate one of the boxes as primary and identify all items in the
datastore that absolutly must not be subject to race conditions between
the two boxes (message UUID for example). In addition to implementing
the
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, David Lang wrote:
Thanks, this is exactly the type of feedback that I was hopeing to get.
so you are saying that #5 is more like $50k-100k and #6 goes up from
there
If anyone could implement Active-Active for Cyrus from scratch in 100 to
150 hours it would be Ken, but I
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: David Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike, one of the problems with this is that different databases have
different interfaces and capabilities.
if you design it to work on Oracle then if you try to make it work on
MySQL there are going to be
There are many ways of doing High Availability. This is an attempt to
outline the various methods with the advantages and disadvantages. Ken and
David (and anyne else who has thoughts on this) please feel free to add to
this. I'm attempting to outline them roughly in order of complexity.
1.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, David Lang wrote:
5. Active/Active
designate one of the boxes as primary and identify all items in the
datastore that absolutly must not be subject to race conditions between
the two boxes (message UUID for example). In addition to implementing
the replication needed for #1
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, David Carter wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, David Lang wrote:
5. Active/Active
designate one of the boxes as primary and identify all items in the
datastore that absolutly must not be subject to race conditions between
the two boxes (message UUID for example). In addition to
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
David Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice review of replication ABC :)
Here are my thoughts:
1. Active-Slave replication with manual failover
This is really the simplest way to do it. Rsync (and friends) does 90% of
the required job here; the only thing
please don't misunderstand my posts. it's not that I don't think that
active/active/active is possible, it's just that I think it's far more
complicated.
assiming that the simplest method would cost ~$3000 to code I would make a
wild guess that the ballpark figures would be
1. active/passive
--On Monday, September 20, 2004 00:43 +0200 Jure Pe ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
David Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice review of replication ABC :)
Here are my thoughts:
1. Active-Slave replication with manual failover
This is really the simplest way
Hi,
Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have redundancy then the next enhancement is
going to be to teach murder about it so that
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Actually what I was really asking, is are people looking for an
active-active config and an active-passive config?
I'm not sure that IMAP is ameniable to active-active: the prevalence of
UIDs in the protocol means that it would be very hard to resolve
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
I'm not sure that IMAP is ameniable to active-active: the prevalence of
UIDs in the protocol means that it would be very hard to resolve the
inconsistencies that would occur if a pair of machines ever lost touch.
Right, I was assuming that active-passive
Hi,
Eric S. Pulley wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
Cyrus performs pretty well already. Background redundancy would be
awesome. Especially if we had control over when the syncing process
occurred either via time interval or
mysql does not have multi-master functionality, and it's replication,
is quite honestly, a joke. You may have mis-spoken and are talking
about the up-and-coming mysql cluster or the mysql max product (both
of which i'm much less familiar with).
Indeed i was talking about mysql cluster (which
Hi,
Ken Murchison wrote:
I think this would cause performance to suffer greatly. I think what
we want is lazy replication, where the client gets instant results
from the machine its connected to, and the replication is done in the
background. I believe this is what David's implementation
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Paul Dekkers wrote:
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:25:26 +0200
From: Paul Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Funding Cyrus High Availability
Hi,
Eric S. Pulley wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy
David Lang wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
Cyrus performs pretty well already. Background redundancy would be
awesome. Especially if we had control over when the syncing process
occurred either via time interval or date/time.
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Paul Dekkers wrote:
Isn't it possible to have equal roles? If all changes are put in some
backlog, and a synchroniser process runs on both machines and pushes the
backlog (as soon as there is any) to another machine... then you can
have the some process on both (equal)
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:25:26 +0200
Paul Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say not at an interval but as soon as there is an action
performed on one mailbox, the other one would be pushed to do something.
I believe that is called rolling replication.
I would not be really happy with
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Jure [ISO-8859-2] Pe_ar wrote:
So how does this cyrus in a raid view sound? It should probalby be
called raims for redundand array of inexpensive mail servers anyway ;)
We call it RAIN: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Nodes.
Really cheap Intel servers in our case :)
--
David
Hello,
All that you say is true. But for performance one either
buys bigger and better or multiple machines to spread the
load. Murder allows one to buy multiple machines.
All I am saying is that improving perforance may already
be done. I believe redundancy in the application is more
important at
David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have redundancy then the next enhancement is going
to
My vote would be for active/active, its usually more reliable and of
course it builds in better scaleability. I imagine the the main
question of everyone will be how the choice of active/active or
active/passive will effect cost/time of implementation.
L
On Sep 17, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Ken
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have
My biggest question here is, simply, why recreate what's already
out there?
There are a number of projects (LVM, PVFS) which do this kind of
replication/distribution/virtulization for filesystems.
There are a number of databases which have active/active clustering
(mysql, DB2, Oracle, et al) and
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:28:08 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My biggest question here is, simply, why recreate what's already
out there?
Because none of the existing solutions does not fit our needs well enough.
There are a number of projects (LVM, PVFS) which do this kind of
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My biggest question here is, simply, why recreate what's already
out there?
There are a number of projects (LVM, PVFS) which do this kind of
replication/distribution/virtulization for filesystems.
There are a number of databases which have active/active
-Original Message-
From: David Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 2:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Funding Cyrus High Availability
Mike, one of the problems with this is that different databases have
different
Lee wrote:
What do people think about a bounty program like horde's:
http://www.horde.org/bounties/
Basically people can make paypal donations to fund certain features. For
something like the high availability support, Im guessing that ALOT of
people would donate small to large amounts of cash
Hello All,
I would be willing to pay for this function. Though I am just a startup, and
have very little capital. Most I could prolly do is $100 to $200. Not much.
My fear, which maybe the fear of others is the risk of putting money in, but
there not being enough support by others to reach the
I imagine for a big project like this, refunds could be given. I think
its more a matter of finding someone to deal with this. Id be happy to
do it, but i think it would be best if Ken or another core developer
that everyone knows and already trusts is in charge of holding the
cash. Any Ideas
--On Thursday, September 16, 2004 18:13 -0400 Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
cut
P.S. Ken, not sure if this would be easier or more complex, but another
alternative here might be to write a mysql backend to cyrus, which would
eliminate the need to worry about redundancy given mysql's multimaster
Lee wrote:
I imagine for a big project like this, refunds could be given. I think
its more a matter of finding someone to deal with this. Id be happy to
do it, but i think it would be best if Ken or another core developer
that everyone knows and already trusts is in charge of holding the cash.
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and performance, or
just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have redundancy then the next enhancement is going to
be to teach murder
--On Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:56 PM -0400 Ken Murchison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
Cyrus performs pretty well already. Background redundancy would be awesome.
Especially if we had control
Hello,
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
My $0.02 worth. Performance gains can be found the traditional way, ie,
faster hardware, etc.Our biggest need is for redundance. If something
goes wrong on one machine we still need to be
--On Thursday, September 16, 2004 22:14 -0400 Earl Shannon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
My $0.02 worth. Performance gains can be found the traditional way, ie,
faster hardware, etc.Our biggest
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 18:56 -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
I think this would cause performance to suffer greatly. I think what we
want is lazy replication, where the client gets instant results from
the machine its connected to, and the replication is done in the
background. I believe this
42 matches
Mail list logo
