On Apr 10, 3:38 am, Merric Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James, > > The issue with Cluster is that it is designed to work synchronously. > This is fine when the all the DB is on a fast, local network but not > when the DB needs to be replicated to geographically different networks, > where latency becomes a major issue.
True. With MySQL 5.1 you could replicate between Clusters, but usually 1 site is active, while the other is ready for take over. Master- Master replication is not going to work well with Cluster atm. > Django already cares and knows about the DB it uses - so I not sure I > agree that this can be abstracted out of Django and I can see a bunch > of reasons why Django needs to know more about the DB for large scale > projects. > > 1. Replication with MySQL But replicating to a machine on the other side of the planet is going to give you problems with latency as well. The Slave will get further behind with the Master, so they are not going to see the same data all the time. Anyway, MySQL cluster was just an idea, I still have to use it myself with Django. The good part is that no need to change Django to scale it out. But I would like to put in a backend for MySQL Cluster, but not using SQL.. That would kickass :) Cheers, Geert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
