Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:28:22 -0700 (MST) From: Technical Director <trodat@server1.ultratrends.com> To: Drumslayer <drumslayer2@yahoo.com> Cc: questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MySql Load balancing Solutions? Message-ID: <20050202131948.C63837@server1.ultratrends.com> In-Reply-To: <20050202200924.35488.qmail@web42103.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050202200924.35488.qmail@web42103.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Drumslayer,
> 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. :(
Forgive me for being possibly naive but from what I understand 4.1.X moved
off of beta into Generally Available with a "This is the current generally
available (GA) release of the MySQL database server. It is recommended for
most users." [ http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/4.1.html ] Not
necessarily saying it's bomb proof but I don't know if they classify it
as beta anymore.
As well if it means anything to you we would never have moved our
'crticial' services to 4.1.X from 4.0.XX if we didn't believe it was
ready. Our wait time was seemingly forever but appears to have paid off
with the stability and strength of the system.
My 2 cents.
Rob.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Drumslayer wrote:
>
> --- Technical Director <trodat@ultratrends.com> 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.
>
>
> I so far have only seen an alternative from a company
> called Emic. But it only runs any OS but freeBSD
> sadly. (it modifies the kernel so compat won't do it)
>
> Have you heard of any hardware solutions or FreeBSD
> friendly free or commercial products? I know basic
> clustering and such is supposed to be OK but
> everything that seems OS agnostic says it's Beta.
>
> We may wind up doing it this way but right now its a
> toss up of a Beta Solution or move to linux with Emic.
> Which I'm not fond of becouse its so convoluted and
> Well Not BSD :)
>
> Thanks
>
> M.
>
>
> > This one step in itself has done a LOT for keeping
> > uptimes high and
> > queries fast.
> >
> > A positive advantage is that the 5 machines allows
> > us the opportunity to
> > change the configuration if say one fails we can
> > promote another slave to
> > take that position or in the case of the "W"rite
> > server we can promote a
> > slave to a "W"rite server until the original "W"rite
> > server can be recovered.
> >
> > As well whether you use C/C++, Java, PHP or some
> > other scripting language
> > to access your database it shouldn't be too hard to
> > write some sort of
> > algorithm in your connection to spread the
> > connections across your host
> > base.
> >
> > When it comes to management I won't lie, 4.0.XX's
> > handling of Replication
> > was tough. Since though we've made the move to 4.1.X
> > our problems have
> > become less and less.
> >
> > A final advantage to having seperate machines in a
> > replication setup is
> > the ability to upgrade a segment or machine to a
> > newer MySQL version to
> > see how it will operate on your hardware/OS and with
> > your programs. We did
> > this with our move from 4.0.XX to 4.1.X by taking 2
> > slaves out of the main
> > loop, promoting one to the new 4.1.X master and the
> > other slave to a new
> > 4.1.X slave. After testing in pre-production we
> > proceeded with the
> > deployment on our other 3 boxes.
> >
> > INFO: Our 5 machine replication setup consists of:
> >
> > 1) 1 - 4 x P4 Xeon Compaq Server ("W"rite DB Server)
> > 2) 4 - 1 x P3 Compaq Servers ("R"ead DB Server)
> >
> > NOTE: On a smaller scale on my home network I do the
> > same on three
> > machines all sub-server class. I still have great
> > reliability and "robust"
> > performance from such a simple design.
> >
> > I hope this information is helpful, I know it works
> > well for us.
> >
> > Rob.
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Drumslayer wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > > I have been running a fairly heavy duty server
> > for
> > > MySQL on FreeBSD but its starting to peak. I would
> > > like to know what others have done as far as using
> > a
> > > load balancing solution for MySQL or their success
> > > with replication.
> > > Also has anyone done a 64 bit build of MySQL on
> > > FreeBSD successfully?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > M.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> > > http://my.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> > >
> >
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> >
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050202131948.C63837>