Great! that was fast...when you wrote "in new scheme that is being worked on" - it seemed like a future thing.
On Dec 26, 7:01 pm, Alex Kovalyov <[email protected]> wrote: > The "new scheme", when master never gets killed is now in production. > > On 25 дек, 18:03, Alex Kovalyov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > With the current scheme of It's normal when two slaves are running > > after sync to all, one of them just needs some time to become master. > > 30 minutes in your case, considering the database size. > > In new scheme that is being worked on, master will never be replaced. > > It wasn't implemented by now because ami ids of slaves and master > > would be different. > > > On 25 дек, 16:40, afishler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > seems like there is no dns entry for the master so they are actually > > > both slaves. How do I get out of this situation? > > > > On Dec 25, 4:22 pm, afishler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I "synchronized all" on the master mysql. > > > > > After it completed, currently the control panel displays that both are > > > > slaves. > > > > > The log indicates that one has "I'm first: 1" and the other 0. Does > > > > this mean that one is actually the master? (the one having first=1), > > > > is this just a display error or there is more to that. > > > > > Also - the two instances have the same up time....is the way scalr > > > > handles mysql synchronizing is by bringing up 2 new instances, loading > > > > the database backup and then taking the 2 existing instances together? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scalr-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scalr-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
