I don't think active/passive is what we mean here, since both clusters are fully "active" from the perspective of clients, right? The slave cluster is not actually read-only, is it?
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Michael Segel <[email protected]> wrote: > master - master? > > Do you mean active - active ? > > replace master and slave with active and passive. > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Misty Stanley-Jones < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > >
