I could be wrong BUT... > 1) Does increasing the number of replication slaves increase query > latency on the master? We're considering tiering the replication if > it might help - replicate the master to two slaves, each of which > replicates to ten clients.
The slaves should only be pulling from the log file, not querying the master data directly. But yes, I guess I could cause an additional load on the server if there are many many slaves. But with < 10,000 updates a day (that is 8 per minute, this shouldn't be much of a load at all. > 2) Is there a chance that the insert latency is coming from the fact > that the table is growing so long? At a certain point, even with > indexes, I imagine that the engine is going to have to do some linear > searching. Well, back to answer 1. Replication is about log's, not querying the data. You mentioned updates, but what about querying the data. Do you run a lot of queries against the data on the master server? We have a database with 50M rows in it and we have a complicated replication strategy for the reader just so we can take 99% of the load off the master. We have a slave'd database just to run reports from (actually we have a load balanced cluster of them). The master received inserts about 20 records/s Also, what type of database are you using? INNODB? MyISAM? If you are running MyISAM then things can get slow on updates. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
