Re: MySql Load balancing Solutions?

--- Technical Director
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> Drumslayer,
> 
> >  The only problem with this is that 4.1 is stil
> > considered Beta ("not yet ready for production").
> I
> > see little chance in convincing managment to
> utilize
> > something beta for something so important.  :(
> 
> Forgive me for being possibly naive but from what I
> understand 4.1.X moved
> off of beta into Generally Available with a "This is
> the current generally
> available (GA) release of the MySQL database server.
> It is recommended for
> most users." [
> http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/4.1.html ] Not
> necessarily saying it's bomb proof but I don't know
> if they classify it
> as beta anymore.

 Sorry I am feeding some of this to our "Data Base
Guy" and that is what he told me. I should have looked
it up myself. 

> As well if it means anything to you we would never
> have moved our
> 'crticial' services to 4.1.X from 4.0.XX if we
> didn't believe it was
> ready. Our wait time was seemingly forever but
> appears to have paid off
> with the stability and strength of the system.

 That's so great to hear. The way things are setup I
manage the Hardware and OS and he does the daily
Database stuff so I tend to defer to him since that's
all he does. But it seems he was in error or out of
date.   Makes me happy :)
  

 Thanks!

 M.


> My 2 cents.
> 
> Rob.
> 
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Drumslayer wrote:
> 
> >
> > --- Technical Director <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Drumslayer,
> > >
> > > I am part of a team running MySQL 4.1.X on 5
> > > machines in a replication
> > > setup. Our first way to help manage load is the
> use
> > > of useful rules in
> > > our connection classes to direct "W"rites to our
> big
> > > server with fast I/O
> > > and memory and directing "R"reads to our slower
> I/O
> > > less RAM slaves only.
> >
> >
> >  I so far have only seen an alternative from a
> company
> > called Emic. But it only runs any OS but freeBSD
> > sadly. (it modifies the kernel so compat won't do
> it)
> >
> >  Have you heard of any hardware solutions or
> FreeBSD
> > friendly free or commercial products? I know basic
> > clustering and such is supposed to be OK but
> > everything that seems OS agnostic says it's Beta.
> >
> >  We may wind up doing it this way but right now
> its a
> > toss up of a Beta Solution or move to linux with
> Emic.
> > Which I'm not fond of becouse its so convoluted
> and
> > Well Not BSD :)
> >
> >  Thanks
> >
> >  M.
> >
> >
> > > This one step in itself has done a LOT for
> keeping
> > > uptimes high and
> > > queries fast.
> > >
> > > A positive advantage is that the 5 machines
> allows
> > > us the opportunity to
> > > change the configuration if say one fails we can
> > > promote another slave to
> > > take that position or in the case of the "W"rite
> > > server we can promote a
> > > slave to a "W"rite server until the original
> "W"rite
> > > server can be recovered.
> > >
> > > As well whether you use C/C++, Java, PHP or some
> > > other scripting language
> > > to access your database it shouldn't be too hard
> to
> > > write some sort of
> > > algorithm in your connection to spread the
> > > connections across your host
> > > base.
> > >
> > > When it comes to management I won't lie,
> 4.0.XX's
> > > handling of Replication
> > > was tough. Since though we've made the move to
> 4.1.X
> > > our problems have
> > > become less and less.
> > >
> > > A final advantage to having seperate machines in
> a
> > > replication setup is
> > > the ability to upgrade a segment or machine to a
> > > newer MySQL version to
> > > see how it will operate on your hardware/OS and
> with
> > > your programs. We did
> > > this with our move from 4.0.XX to 4.1.X by
> taking 2
> > > slaves out of the main
> > > loop, promoting one to the new 4.1.X master and
> the
> > > other slave to a new
> > > 4.1.X slave. After testing in pre-production we
> > > proceeded with the
> > > deployment on our other 3 boxes.
> > >
> > > INFO: Our 5 machine replication setup consists
> of:
> > >
> > > 1) 1 - 4 x P4 Xeon Compaq Server ("W"rite DB
> Server)
> > > 2) 4 - 1 x P3 Compaq Servers ("R"ead DB Server)
> > >
> > > NOTE: On a smaller scale on my home network I do
> the
> > > same on three
> > > machines all sub-server class. I still have
> great
> > > reliability and "robust"
> > > performance from such a simple design.
> > >
> > > I hope this information is helpful, I know it
> works
> > > well for us.
> > >
> > > Rob.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Drumslayer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >  I have been running a fairly heavy duty
> server
> > > for
> > > > MySQL on FreeBSD but its starting to peak. I
> would
> > > > like to know what others have done as far as
> using
> > > a
> > > > load balancing solution for MySQL or their
> success
> > > > with replication.
> > > >  Also has anyone done a 64 bit build of MySQL
> on
> > > > FreeBSD successfully?
> > > >
> > > >  Thanks!
> > > >
> > > >   M.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> > > > http://my.yahoo.com
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > [email protected] mailing list
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > > "[email protected]"
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > [email protected] mailing list
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > > "[email protected]"
> > >
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 
 

_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"