On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Stuart Bishop <stuart.bis...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Martin Pool <m...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> * actually doing lp-related work generally requires write access > > With time and effort, I think pretty much everything about read only > mode could be fixed except this. If this is true and there is little > point to a read-only mode during outages, then we might as well ditch > it. > > If we invest some time in it, it can become more useful in general. If > appservers automatically switched when they lose their master database > connections, it becomes a failover mode if the master db dies or > network connections between the data centers craps out. Again, if > failover to read-only-mode is pointless it is pointless :-)
I think there is some nuance here. Handling the master being awol gracefully is a good thing - and readonly requests shouldn't need the master. Going into the big 'its all readonly' lock that we do at the moment however is quite a different thing - its not handling degradation gracefully, its an explicit 'do not try' flag. I guess I mean - I'm talking about the *existence* and use of the readonly replica as a way to permit schema changes to happen as the root cause of a number of our deploy reliability and post-deploy performance issues. -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
