On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
it's
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
importantly very
+1
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 09:02 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
it's limitations
It does keep popping up on the user list, so some folks will be
surprised, but it is better that they go down the shared storage road
from the start.
On 8 November 2012 14:02, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation
yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
+1
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due
