Hmm... From that angle all we really have is master-slave replication, without
limit as how it can be setup.A master can be slave too, and a slave a master,
and cycles are allowed.
I find "cyclical replication" more confusing than "master-master" (although
it's true that master-master is strictly a subset of cyclical - just a cycle of
two).
We might want to scrap all the terms and just state (hopefully a bit nicer)
what I tried to say in the first two sentences above.
-- Lars
From: Misty Stanley-Jones <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:26 PM
Subject: Replication terminology "master-master"
Hi all,
I think "master-master" is a term that should be re-thought. It is not
really a "type" of replication, but refers to a characteristic of a
cluster, specifically a cluster which participates in multiple clusters
with different roles -- it is a slave in one cluster and a master in
another cluster. I think with the current terminology, people confuse it
with "cyclical" replication, in which two clusters replicate to each other,
and eventually each has all the data from both.
Since master-master in this sense is really not a type of replication, I
think we should just scrap it. You can have master-slave replication or
cyclical replication, or a combination. With master-slave replication, a
cluster can fulfill both roles at the same time, as long as it is in
different clusters. This is easy to understand as a sort of recursive
cascade.
Am I explaining it right, and what do you guys think about changing our
terminology?
Thanks,
Misty
