[racktables-users] Re: Question about racktables and mysql Cluster.
- From: Jonathan Thurman <jthurman42@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: racktables-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:42:16 -0700
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Michael Mansour <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Good Day everyone,
> >
> > I am interested on putting racktables on a mysql cluster. Is anyone
> > doing this now? Did you have to do anything special?
>
Is this because you have a MySQL Cluster, or you need Racktables to run in
some sort of HA configuration?
I am not running Racktables on MySQL Cluster, but I don't see anything
obvious to prevent it. I wouldn't create a new cluster specifically for
Racktables though. If you have one already, then it might be worth testing.
> > From what I read so far (an it is not much) you need to change the
> > engine to ndbcluser.
>
I don't have access to a test MySQL Cluster right now, or I would try it.
>
> This depends on how you're intending to cluster MySQL. There are many ways
> to
> do this using Linux HA software or through MySQL clustering/relication
> systems.
>
> Personally if I was doing this I'd use software like linuxha.net to make a
> MySQL cluster app, and then tell Racktables to use that MySQL instance via
> a
> hostname or IP address.
>
I can think of three options in order of complexity (most to least): MySQL
Cluster, MySQL / DRBD, MySQL Multi-master / Virtual IP.
MySQL Cluster requires at least 3 servers just to run the database (if you
want any type of HA). There are lots of things to think about, like all
indexes are stored ONLY in RAM (as is ALL data by default) which can be
rather limiting if not engineered correctly.
A MySQL/DRBD option is also somewhat tricky to get going if you haven't
before. It does require less hardware (2 servers) and no modifications to
the tables. If you can be tolorent of a few seconds of downtime if a node
fails, then this should work just fine. You would have to write a script to
launch MySQL on the failover node too.
MySQL Multi-master would let you update to either server, and only requires
2 servers. It could also be more geographically redundant (except for the
shared IP, but you could get around that by using a load balance like
Pirahna in front). This type of replication is asynchronous and you could
lose data.
Hope that helps.
-Jonathan
Other related posts:
