Re: Why master/master replication is not recommended by MySQL officially?
Posted by:
Rick James
Date: August 31, 2015 02:20PM
Good link, Jon.
Justin, since you have long been happy with Dual-Master, continue using it.
"Circular" replication with more than two Masters is a worse nightmare because of difficulties re-establishing the connections between Masters and also between Slaves and Master. (I hope the docs hide Circular repl even deeper.)
What's the purpose of Dual-Master?
* Write scaling? Not much (as the link says).
* Quicker failover? This, alone, is worth something.
Alternatives:
Plan A: Dual-Master, but single-writer. This gives you the quick failover of Dual-Master without the problems of Dual-Master. As Jon's link says, there is not much performance diff. However, if the Masters are geographically distant for each other (good idea for BCP), clients may have to reach farther.
Plan B: Galera-based multi-master (and others).
Plan C: Fabric -- Single-master but automates topology repair upon failure of Master.
Subject
Views
Written By
Posted
1915
August 30, 2015 09:25PM
1088
August 31, 2015 10:10AM
Re: Why master/master replication is not recommended by MySQL officially?
1274
August 31, 2015 02:20PM
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
Content reproduced on this site is the property of the respective copyright holders.
It is not reviewed in advance by Oracle and does not necessarily represent the opinion
of Oracle or any other party.