Folks, For the sole purpose of providing info: We had a very specific customer demand for high availability of a Web application, plus MySQL service and data. The machines holding theses services would be out in the field, with no access whatsoever to shared storage. We implemented a two node Red Hat Cluster configuration to allow for Web Application HA, and droped in a IP resource for the MySQL service. The MySQL service itself is always on, on both hosts, configured with master<->master replication. This has been in production use for something like 20 sites, for over two years. CR. On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 10:56 -0500, Jeff Sturm wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] > > On Behalf Of Gordan Bobic > > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:31 AM > > To: linux clustering > > Subject: Re: Active Active Cluster > > > > 3) MySQL Cluster > > Pros: Faster than 2) > > Cons: While it's running all data has to be in RAM, which limits the > > size of the databases. Still slower than 1). > > MySQL Cluster supports disk data tables these days, which have their own caveats but can grow larger than available RAM. Indexes must still fit entirely in RAM. > > Plan on a lot of testing if anyone tries it--you can get good results if you have control over the queries and schemas, but a naïve port from, say, InnoDB to NDB can be disastrous. MySQL Cluster is complex and has nothing to do with Red Hat Cluster (which is why I'll stop here--subscribe to cluster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for more info). > > -Jeff > > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Cleber Rodrigues <crosa@xxxxxxxxxx> Solutions Architect - Red Hat, Inc. Mobile: +55 61 9185.3454 -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
