Can I get some consensus on what we should be saying about different replication types? It's a bit over my head and I don't feel comfortable making a unilateral decision.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Michael Segel <[email protected]> wrote: > Both clusters are alive, but the terms active/passive means who’s serving > the data. > > Your ‘master’ is the HBase cluster which is r/w and serving data. > > Your ‘slave’ is the cluster that is passive or only serving read only data. > > To your point that active/passive may be incorrect because you can read > from the passive, too. > > Peer to Peer may be incorrect in that while both are peers, you’re > actively writing to one, while the other gets a copy of the data and is > passive. > Understanding that in context a HBase cluster can be active for one data > set and passive for another. > > Active/Active would be that I could write to either and there would be > some form of eventual consistency. > > On Nov 28, 2014, at 1:15 AM, Misty Stanley-Jones < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > >> > >> > >
