Hey,
On Wed, 1 May 2013, Ryan Lane wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>wrote:
| [...]
There were never answers to this, so I bring it up here
again:
1. How were "almost /all/ of the problems the TS have had
with replication" "caused by that redundancy and trying
to keep it synced"?
Thanks for this question :) - I also want to know.
From my perspective it does not look like this and even the data
inconsistencies appear when we have no commons copy on a mysql instance.
And: DaB experimented with federated tables for commons too and we decided to
not do this since it does not perform from the start.
Probably nowadays when I planned something new in this area (which does not seem to make sense for TS) I'd really give Galera a try -
http://codership.com/content/using-galera-cluster
2. What limitation will the Toolserver have at some point?
As to #2: From what I've been told this has to do with future sharding
plans for the databases, and due to a change in how we'll be doing
replication. Of course, I've heard this in passing. For answers to both of
these questions you'll need to talk to binasher and/or notpeter on IRC, as
they are the ones doing the database work.
Thanks for telling...
Cheers
Marlen/nosy
_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list:
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
