Hi Patrick MySQL replication is only one way in 3.2x so all writes have to be sent to the master server, but the reads can be done from the slaves. If you loose a slave then no big deal round robin DNS alone should take care of that with very little impact, but if you loose the master then you can't perform any writes until it's back up and running.
If you can't live with the risk of data loss then question 2 is really irrelevent, and so if most of question 3. InnoDB is the only transaction capable DB format MySQL supports so even if it is slower, what choice do you have? The only question left is: Is it reliable enough for a production environment? Usually when faced with that question I use PostgreSQL. Dave At 14:23 1/04/2002 +0800, Patrick Hsieh wrote: >Hello, > >I am planing to have some woody with mysql-server running on a >mission-critical environment. My criteria is: > > >1. HA requirement: >By using mysql built-in replication, I'd like to have a load-balancing >and fail-over mysql clusters > >2. minimal data loss risk >How much can mysql 3.2x guarentee the minimization of data loss? > >3. InnoDB and MyISAM impact on performance and management? >Since we need transaction, InnoDB is the only choice. Is there any >performance or management impact between InnoDB and MyISAM? >Is InnoDB reliable enough for productive environment? > >Any experience highly appreciated. > > > >-- >Patrick Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >GPG public key http://pahud.net/pubkeys/pahudatpahud.gpg > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
