+1 :) On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I suggest we drop the lingo and just say what we mean explicitly: "A > cluster may act as both a replication source and destination > simultaneously." > > On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Misty Stanley-Jones < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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] > > <javascript:;>> > > 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] <javascript:;>> 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] <javascript:;>> > > > > 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] <javascript:;>> 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 > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
