Heh, yeah, we run master-master but I wasn't thrilled with the dance. We'd be replacing the hardware too, so it'd be more like A-B slaving to C, which is a new InnoDB box, and then A-C, and then A-C slaving to D, which is the other new InnoDB box, and then C-D master-master (plus a slave backup on E...)
Sounds like a hassle to me, which is why we've hired people who are better at ops. :) -n On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 12, 2008, at 16:48, Nathan Schmidt wrote: > > > > Thanks for the tips! We've got a project underway already to move to > > InnoDB but it's a bit of a hassle (particularly since we really really > > don't like going offline for maintenance). > > > > > Don't you run master-master? > > Stop replication from A-B, run database traffic on "B", do schema changes > on "A", let replication (B-A) catch up, move traffic to "A", restart A-B > replication. > > Viola. No downtime. > > > > > - ask > > -- > http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/ > > > -- New office! 1825 South Grant Street, Suite 850 San Mateo 94402 New home! 21677 Rainbow Drive Cupertino 95014 New phone! 415.420.1647
