> from what i've read and seen geographical load balancer
> works as: multiple DNS A records routes to multiple
> Apache Servers(mod_php tucks in as a module under Apache)
> each web servers would connect to MySQL on their own
> localhost 1.2.3.4-WebServer would communicate directly to
> 1.2.3.4-M
> Do you want geographic redundancy or do you want to scale reads?
> In this case you're talking about scaling reads for a bunch of
> apps all running together. If you want performance in that case,
> then first you'd want to isolate the apps from each other.
Geographic redundancy is my primary g
25, 2009 4:18 PM
To: Gavin Towey
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Master/Slave Replication Question
> Moreover, it works today as opposed to waiting until the end
> of time for the database developers to add features like that
> (which mysql cluster is already a distributed database
> Moreover, it works today as opposed to waiting until the end
> of time for the database developers to add features like that
> (which mysql cluster is already a distributed database, and
> the devs have said they're not interested in trying to turn
> the regular mysql into a distributed product,
ey were designed to scale well.
Regards,
Gavin Towey
-Original Message-
From: Tim Gustafson [mailto:t...@soe.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:44 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Master/Slave Replication Question
> Another thought would be at the application laye
> Another thought would be at the application layer, sending
> all the updates (insert,delete, update, etc) to server A,
> and the selects to the local slave servers.
This has been suggested before, and I'm totally against it. Applications like
PHPBB, Drupal, WordPress, etc can't be easily confi
