Agree with you guys. I also experienced difficulty to explain about Master-Master and cyclical to my users before, until I began to talk about M-S only as building-block, which can be applied as one please.
Just like to chime in another point, maybe the document should emphasize that the Master or Slave term is from *the perspective of 'table:columnFamly'*. It is often confused when using term as 'Master-cluster' or 'Slave-Cluster' as if the cluster as a whole is a Master/Slave. Unless the clusters are setup strictly as one-way replication. the Cluster often serves for both roles. Demai On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > "A master can be > > slave too, and a slave a master, and cycles are allowed" since with just > > that you can build everything else. > > +1 > > > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:29 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> 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). > > > > I agree with that. > > > > > >> 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. > > > > One thing about "master-master" is that some audiences will get it right > > away, for example folks coming from the MySQL world, but maybe we want to > > skip using it in our doc and just say what you wrote above "A master can > be > > slave too, and a slave a master, and cycles are allowed" since with just > > that you can build everything else. > > > > > >> -- 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> >
