Noah Miller wrote: > At the time I set this up, MySQL replication was really designed for > one-way replication. Two way replication was possible, but required > somewhat unorthodox methods. (Maybe this has changed, I don't know). > Configuration is also a little tricky. It's not too bad to set it up > between two machines, but 3 machines is more tricky, and 4 is even > more tricky, etc, etc. This client had only 3 offices at the time, > but I knew they would be expanding. They now have 6. > > Anyway, after getting everything working, I found that replication > would periodically stop after some time. I'd have to re-create the > setup, and then replication would work for a time, and then stop again > later. This occurred across several different version of MySQL. I > suppose I could have fixed this issue with persistence, but > unfortunately this was only an annoyance compared to the major issue > of data corruption.
Your experience with database replication is not unique. I have seen this happen with many flavours of database, not just MySQL. At the "critical" sites where I've worked, database replication is not even on the table as an option for precisely the reasons you state above: I have yet to meet someone else who has had a positive experience with it. _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
