[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: Active/Active servers
--On December 6, 2007 5:03:01 PM -0500 John Madden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
If people want READ performance, then set up a couple of replicas in an LB
pool, and point the clients that just need to read at them. Just like one
does now. Masters for writing, replicas for reading.
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration