DB HA feature (db.ha.enabled)
Sure, Daniel
PR #7895 is currently in draft as we need to do some more tests.
However, the intention is to enable users to configure the DB
connection
URI directly through `db.properties` file. These are the tests that
have
been done so far with ACS without
.
From: João Jandre Paraquetti
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 01:26
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org ;
d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Consultation] Remove DB HA feature (db.ha.enabled)
Sure, Daniel
PR #7895 is currently in draft as we need to do some
Sure, Daniel
PR #7895 is currently in draft as we need to do some more tests.
However, the intention is to enable users to configure the DB connection
URI directly through `db.properties` file. These are the tests that have
been done so far with ACS without this PR changeset:
Using the
Hello Lucian and all,
I am -1 on removing the whole DB HA feature from CloudStack.
As we discussed on July[1], the current properties we have on
"db.properties" regarding DB HA are hardcoded and only address some MySQL
properties, which are not fully compatible with the properties for
New adopters may not go ahead with it in production because they won't
get it working, unless they fix a lot of code, that would be a nice pull
request. :)
On 2023-08-22 16:25, K B Shiv Kumar wrote:
Well, if it is broken and it is not prominently mentioned anywhere new
adopters may go ahead
Regards.
From: Nux
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 20:12
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org ; K B Shiv
Kumar
Subject: Re: [Consultation] Remove DB HA feature (db.ha.enabled)
But what do you think of the removal of DB HA code?
When
22, 2023 20:12
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org ; K B Shiv Kumar
Subject: Re: [Consultation] Remove DB HA feature (db.ha.enabled)
But what do you think of the removal of DB HA code?
When using Galera you need to query against a single node, don't spread
the load
Well, if it is broken and it is not prominently mentioned anywhere new adopters
may go ahead with that on production. So I guess best to remove or at least
mention that it is not production grade.
Thanks
Shiv
> On 22-Aug-2023, at 20:12, Nux wrote:
>
> But what do you think of the removal of
But what do you think of the removal of DB HA code?
When using Galera you need to query against a single node, don't spread
the load among all 3, as this will break certain locking functionality
in Cloudstack and lead to problems.
In a Haproxy configuration you should be keeping just one
We faced some issues when running Galera. We went back to master slave.
Anyone using Galera in production for a long time?
Regards,
Shiv
> On 22-Aug-2023, at 19:34, Nux wrote:
>
> Happy to contribute a doc on how to achieve HA if we decide to remove this.
>
> Thanks
>
> On 2023-08-22 15:01,
Happy to contribute a doc on how to achieve HA if we decide to remove
this.
Thanks
On 2023-08-22 15:01, Rohit Yadav wrote:
+1 it's a broken feature that at least doesn't work with MySQL 8.x, I'm
not sure if it worked with prior versions of MySQL. However, we need to
document some sort of
+1 it's a broken feature that at least doesn't work with MySQL 8.x, I'm not
sure if it worked with prior versions of MySQL. However, we need to document
some sort of suggested MySQL HA setup in our docs.
Regards.
From: Nux
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 18:54
12 matches
Mail list logo
