Dieter Heine wrote: > On 7th september I also participated on the former thread about > utilization of SG. Though I think I understood the concept of SG > I still have a big question about the manual section 8.1.(1). A > reduction of database connection load is promised by splitting > databases. But I'm missing an example in practice that shares databases > between different hosts AND machines. I would like to use different > databases from different machines in one central midgard instance. How > are different databases from different machines (hosts) addressed in > order to join under a central administration of midgard (e.g. Asgard) ?
You can use remote databases with midgard but right now it requires you to change defaults.h from midgard-lib to enter the servername and recompile midgard-lib. You can admin multiple databases with asgard (for example) but you'd need Asgard in each since Asgard doesn't work with multidb. Technically Midgard can admin a site in one db using a host in another but it carries some limitation in Midgard functionality for the adminsite involbed and asgard (nor nadmin, btw) work with those limitations. > There is a database directive in the midgard.conf file included in > apaches httpd.conf. Maybe this directive should be distributed into > several virtual hosts ? Is there a syntax example on this directive for > another mysql database on a different machine ? Currently not. > Maybe I should open a new thread for my question. But maybe piotras > only mixed up SG and hosts due to the virtual character of midgards > "hosts" objects. If I understood only some of his requests here he only > wants to join different "hosts" from different machines in a single > sitegroup (piotras ?). Unfortunately midgard "hosts" objects always > belong to the same machine. Is there a chance to 'mount' different > databases from different hosts to a single sitegroup ? It is impossible to join hosts in different databases into one SG. > However the manual tells me about sitegroups that split databases and > therefor reduce connection loads. In my case I don't need so much > performance improvement. But splitting of the midgard databases becomes > already important if two sites had no chance for synchronized tables > from the project start. Synchronized tables? > Thats why they have to be merged while both tables e.g. for page > records already having duplicate record-ids. The idea of sitegroups may > have been to work as a secondary key in addition to the record-ids as > primary keys. That's about it, yes. > But I don't think that they allow duplicate record-ids. Nope. > However different databases as mentioned in the manual would be the > right way. How can it be applied from different hosts ? Just use a separate MidgardDatabase directive for those VirtualHosts. You can run an adminsite in a separate database using the MidgardPageDatabase directive, but as I said, none of the current admin sites work with this (although oldadmin requires only a few simple changes). Emile --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
