On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Roland Bouman wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Francesco <[email protected]>
wrote:
What happen if master and slave have different default engines ?
IMHO it should be an error
I do not agree on this one.
I am not a replication expert - very far from it - but my
understanding is that at least for MySQL it is common practice to have
a InnoDB master with transactions and referential integrity to deal
with writes, and many MyISAM slaves for read only scale out purposes.
Drizzle is not MySQL but the concept that slaves can be used for
different workloads than the master, and should thus in principle be
adaptable to a different workload by changing for example the engine,
seems sensible to me.
Feature, not bug.
Hmm yes and no. I've seen things go crazily wrong when mixing engines
between masters and slaves and we tend to not recommend doing so.
InnoDB is very different from MyISAM and you can quickly run into ugly
issues if you try to do something in a way that the other engine might
not prefer. It's a recipe for, at least, complexity and, at most,
disaster. I think most cases of when this might make sense can be
implementing using better techniques. For instance, if someone wants
read-only slaves for FULLTEXT searching, a better solution is to use
Sphinx. As a result, I actually think Drizzle should NOT support
mixing of engines with replication.
While not related to the topic at hand, I thought I'd put my $0.02 in
just the same.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
