On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 01:54, Alex J. Avriette wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:20:07PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 21:01, Alex J. Avriette wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > > Replication won't help if those are all mostly write transactions. If a
> > > > small percentage, even 1% would be challenging, is INSERTS, UPDATES or
> > > > DELETES, master / slave replication might get you somewhere.
> > >
> > > There is no way on earth we could be doing writes at that rate. I think
> > > that's a given.
> >
> > Sure you can, if you can horizontally partition the data so clients A
> > are on machine A, clients B are on machine B, ...
>
> I think you were assuming inserts here. The problem actually comes from
> updates here. The problem is, if I update here, how long before the
No, with the above I'm assuming that you have several completely
independent systems.
Look, if you're really doing that many select style queries, I presume
it is because you simply have too much data or it changes too frequently
to present statically as otherwise you wouldn't be using the database
for those queries.
To me, this implies either every one of your mirrors is going to need
some kind of enterprise storage solution, OR you segregate the clients
onto different databases so there is not any cross talk or data
propagation at all.
Anyway, you've yet to tell us anything of substance to even allow
guessing at what your solution should be. Simple master/slave mirroring
is only one of many options.
