On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 08:38 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Any questions? > > Any reason not to use MySQL replication instead of doing the dump > between boxes (I don't know Postgres, but I assume it has something > similar)? > > Just wanting the resources to be dedicated to each DB platform or use > it more as a backup instead of a hot failover? Aside from the resource issues (running two dbs on the same box is competing for the same resources) I've done this before and it was a bit harder than it should be. Mysql has a tendency to stop replicating between master and slave. Then you either have to put the server into read-only and rsync or interpret the mysql errors and back out/repair the offending mysql statements/tables. Postgres was more stable as a warm-standby but the server was less loaded. (terminology is slightly different because with postgres, you are performing a continuous recovery so you can't use the standby as a read-only replica while it is pulling the replica data.) But it was much more effort to setup. Also, this requires postgres 8.2 and I think we're only going to upgrade to 8.1. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
