I guess "multi-master" is the more common term for this kind of replication.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Demai Ni <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
