From owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 2 20:27:44 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FA816A4D0 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:27:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from galilee.polands.org (CPE-24-208-53-189.new.rr.com [24.208.53.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324F643D49 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:27:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from djp@polands.org) Received: from jericho.polands.org (jericho.polands.org [172.16.1.35]) by galilee.polands.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j12KRfRZ087591; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:27:42 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from djp@polands.org) Received: from jericho.polands.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jericho.polands.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j12KRfxH091977; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:27:41 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from djp@jericho.polands.org) Received: (from djp@localhost) by jericho.polands.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j12KRfk8091944; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:27:41 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from djp) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:27:41 -0600 From: Doug Poland To: Drumslayer Message-ID: <20050202202740.GA19880@polands.org> References: <20050201190017.D61397@server1.ultratrends.com> <20050202200924.35488.qmail@web42103.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050202200924.35488.qmail@web42103.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: FreeBSD Database Subject: Re: MySql Load balancing Solutions? X-BeenThere: freebsd-database@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Database use and development under FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:27:44 -0000 On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:09:24PM -0800, Drumslayer wrote: > > --- Technical Director 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. > > 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. :( > 4.1 is not beta anymore. I believe it became the production branch as of 4.1.7. Now they're up to 4.1.9 -- Regards, Doug