Since we already use this terminology inside HBase, wouldn't "peer to peer" be the right term?
Lars Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Nov 2014, at 02:16, Misty Stanley-Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think of multi-master more in the case of load-balancing, where multiple > machines are all fulfilling the role of master at the same time on the same > cluster. I can't picture how it would apply to multiple clusters. I'm not > sure, maybe i'm not getting it, but multi-master seems like a subtlely > different thing. > >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >>
