Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

MySQL Replication vs. Clustering ?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

MySQL Replication vs. Clustering ?

risharderisharde Patron Provider, Veteran
edited November 2012 in Help

Hi guys, I need some help or clarification and I know many of you are technically inclined since many of you are developers and infrastructure personnel. Do you use MySQL replication or clustering? As far as my research is showing me, replication basically copies records from master to slave and there's a chance that if the master goes down, the slave won't have the latest recorded information.

The MAIN Question:
Has anyone been able to use a "replication" in such a way that the both servers are constantly in the same state (replicated) and if master fails, the slave works and then when master comes back, slave syncs back with master so that master is now fully in sync once more?

Or is it that I am thinking about clustering in this scenario? I just remembered someone talking about master-master replication so I have no idea what that means!

Thanks for any help you can provide, googling this does give some information but doesn't answer my question above entirely.

P.S Thinking about having VPS with mysql for scaling (more out of curiousity at this point in time)


  • concerto49concerto49 Member
    edited November 2012

    Hi, there are lots of ways to do replication. Depends on what you are looking for. You sound like you want auto failover. You can have master/master or master/slave.

    if you want them to be in the same state, make sure they are not too far apart and not slow.

    Synchronous replication will always be in the same state, but slow as they have to all be updated before anything can be done. Async is fast, but not 100% same.

  • I use Percona XtraDB Cluster. It works well if you need to be able to distribute writes across many nodes, and need everything to stay in sync.

  • Take a look at Galera & Tungsten Replicator. Prefer tungsten myself but it's a bit more complex.

  • @NickM said: Percona XtraDB Cluste

    +1 on this for us too. We had issues with Mysql's 'standard' replication losing transactions or having slow data, since mysql's ACID compliancy seems to stop at replication.

  • risharderisharde Patron Provider, Veteran

    Thanks for the responses you guys, so quick question, I see both of you guys are using Percona... doesn't MySQL Cluster (with NDB) do what Percona XtraDB is doing or am I missing something? I read a website that said that MySQL Cluster requires the tables to be in RAM and that is what limits the cluster but then I saw someone on another website say that it doesn't have to be like this, so credibility is another problem when researching lol Can any of you clarify why you chose the Percona over the standard MySQL Cluster (NDB)?

  • risharderisharde Patron Provider, Veteran

    @unused I saw someone on stackoverflow mention tungsten but that's a pay-for software right?

  • @risharde nope - tungsten replicator is open source, tungsten enterprise is pay.

  • risharderisharde Patron Provider, Veteran

    @unused nice!!! Will have a look at that as well, thanks for the heads up ;)

  • @risharde said: doesn't MySQL Cluster (with NDB) do what Percona XtraDB is doing or am I missing something?

    Read , XtraDB solves a lot of these potential issues.

  • risharderisharde Patron Provider, Veteran

    @Damian Thanks for this! I now understand! Much appreciated

Sign In or Register to comment.