[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Active Active Cluster

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com]
> On Behalf Of Gordan Bobic
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:31 AM
> To: linux clustering
> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Active Active Cluster
> 3) MySQL Cluster
> Pros: Faster than 2)
> Cons: While it's running all data has to be in RAM, which limits the
> size of the databases. Still slower than 1).

MySQL Cluster supports disk data tables these days, which have their own caveats but can grow larger than available RAM.  Indexes must still fit entirely in RAM.

Plan on a lot of testing if anyone tries it--you can get good results if you have control over the queries and schemas, but a naïve port from, say, InnoDB to NDB can be disastrous.  MySQL Cluster is complex and has nothing to do with Red Hat Cluster (which is why I'll stop here--subscribe to cluster lists mysql com for more info).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]