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