|
In the configuration I described using Rsync, the MyISMchk would take place
on the slave system, I recognize the time involved would be very large, but
this is only the slave. This configuration would be setup so an Rsync
between the master and slave takes place every 2 hours, and then the Slave
would execute a MyISMchk to ensure the data is ready for action.
I recognize that approximately 2 hours worth of data could be lost, but I
would probably us the MySQL BinLogs rotated at 15 minutes interval and
stored on the slave to allow this to be manually merged in, and keep the
data loss time down to only 15 minutes.
Paul, you said that I could simply copy the Data from the Slave to a new
Slave, but you must keep in mind, in order to do this MySQL requires that
the Master and Slave data files be IDENTICAL, that means the Master must be
turned off, the data copied to the slave, and then both systems activated.
Resulting in serious downtime.
Mike
> Michael McConnell wrote:
>
> > There are many fundamental problems with MySQL Replication.
> >
> > MySQL's Replication requires that two systems be setup with identical
data
> > sources, activate in a master / slave relationship. If the Master fails
all
> > requests can be directed to the Slave. Unfortunately this Slave does not
> > have a Slave, and the only way to give it a slave, it turn it off
> > synchronize it's data with another system and then Activate them in a
Master
> > / Slave relationship, resulting in serious downtime when databases are
in
> > excess of 6 gigs (-:
>
>
> What is the downtime when you have to run myisamchk against the 6 gig
> database because rsync ran at exactly the same time as mysql was
> writting to the database files and now your sync'd image is corrupted?
>
> There is no reason you can not set up the slave as a master in advance
from the
>
> beginning. You just use the same database image as from the original
master.
>
> When the master master goes down, set up a new slave by simple copying
> the original master image over to the new slave, then point it to the
> old slave that was already setup to be a master. You wouldn't need to
> take the original slave down at all to bring up a new one. You would
> essentially be setting up a replication chain but only with the first 2
> links active.
>
> -Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
|
