[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: Active/Active servers
> Only change to this comment I would make is: rather than an
> active/active master cluster, I'd have it active/hot standby (i.e. the
> VIP on the load balancer only directs connections to one master, and
> fails over to the other master if that one is unavailable rather than
> balancing connections between the two masters all the time, to
> avoid/minimize write conflicts).
Good point, I hadn't considered write conflicts. Active/passive of
course won't provide you the read performance of active/active/LB, but I
doubt that's really the concern here anyway.
Sr. UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana