On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:37:14AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: [snip] > >> Out of curiosity: have you considered MySQL Cluster: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL_Cluster > >> http://www.mysql.com/products/database/cluster/faq.html > >> > >> If yes, can you share your evaluation results? > >> Thanks! > > You need at least three machines to build a MySQL cluster; preferably > more like 6 or 7. All of your data has to fit in RAM on those machines > and you need at least two copies of each item of data for resilience, so > don't bother trying this with anything other than a well populated 64bit > box. Also, if /all/ of your servers crash at the same time (power > problems tend to have this result) then your data has gone *poof* and > you'll be restoring from backup. You did remember to set up a regular > job to create snapshots of the clustered data didn't you?
two machines will suffice. Of course, prefferably more :) Data no longer need to fit into memory, IIRC. Only indexes must. We were running MySQL cluster in production few years back (with 4.x MySQL - when the data had to fit in mem) and it was quite usable. > Cluster tends to be slower than what you can achieve with straight MySQL > on the same hardware. unfortunately, I didn't perform any test. > Cheers, > > Matthew > > -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard > Flat 3 > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate > Kent, CT11 9PW more on the topic at http://www.mysql.com/products/database/cluster/ Regards, Buki -- PGP public key: http://dev.null.cz/buki.asc /"\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML & Outlook Mail / \ http://www.thebackrow.net
pgpRSI3tmwQz5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
