Pierre-Yves, I just would like to say that this would be a very welcome addition to beanstalk for us! (And I'm sure we are not the only ones out there.)
We also have the redundancy challenge. We don't really need to scale out, beanstalk handles everything just fine, but in our architecture it's currently also a spof. We made it 'sorta' HA with keepalived, but when a fail-over occurs the jobs on the queue are lost. That's not really that critical for our platform, but it would be nice if we could avoid it. We are currently considering using binlog with drbd underneath. But if you could implement this feature that would be a lot better and we can wait for that :) Are you going to implement this? How long do you think you need? If you need some help with testing we'd be more than willing to help. Thanks Dennis Krul On Nov 10, 10:58 am, Keith Rarick <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Pierre-Yves Kerembellec > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Most of network "data" servers have some sort of master/slave > > replication mechanism > > to address this particular issue (MySQL, MemcacheDB, Redis, etc). I > > know this is not > > exactly what you had in mind (from what I've read here), but this is > > an interesting > > feature for us (and we are willing to implement it), so what's your > > position on this ? > > The design I was hoping for isn't really for scalability either, just > high availability. > > The reason I prefer peer-peer 2-way replication is because "failover" > is ridiculously simple for clients and requires no external tools or > fancy routing. > > I'm still very much in favor even if you really want to do it > master-slave. Either way this will be a great improvement. > > kr -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beanstalk-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beanstalk-talk?hl=.
