> -----Original Message----- > From: Devananda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 17:13 > To: Jeff > Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com > Subject: Re: Circular Replication > > > Jeff wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:10 > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com > >>Subject: Re: Circular Replication > >> > >> > >>Sid Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/09/2005 15:02:58: > >> > >> > >>>stupid ?: > >>> > >>>what keeps them from getting caught in a write loop? turning off > >>>log_slave_updates? > >>> > >>>I had never thought of this but is has intriging possibilities... > >> > >>Each update is marked with the unique server id of the server which > >>originated it. When the update returns to its originating > >>server, it is > >>dropped instead of being executed. That is why every server > >>must have a > >>unique id. > >> > >> Alec > >> > > > > > > Actually, isn't it required that you start each server with > > --log_slave_updates? > > > > Or is that only necessary in a replication situation like this with > > more than 2 servers? > > > > A -> B -> C -> A > > > > If it's just: > > > > A -> B -> A > > > > Is it necessary to start the servers with --log_slave_updates? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > log-slave-updates causes the server to write to it's own binlog any > statements it read from it's master's binlog. This is necessary in > chains of servers (ie, A->B->C->A); in such chains, it is > necessary that > all servers have BOTH log-bin and log-slave-updates. > > With just 2 servers (A->B->A), you need log-bin, but do not need > log-slave-updates. > > Regards, > Devananda vdv >
Muchos Gracias! -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
