> Only change to this comment I would make is: rather than an > active/active master cluster, I'd have it active/hot standby (i.e. the > VIP on the load balancer only directs connections to one master, and > fails over to the other master if that one is unavailable rather than > balancing connections between the two masters all the time, to > avoid/minimize write conflicts).
Good point, I hadn't considered write conflicts. Active/passive of course won't provide you the read performance of active/active/LB, but I doubt that's really the concern here anyway. John -- John Madden Sr. UNIX Systems Engineer Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana [EMAIL PROTECTED]
