From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 30 12:16:41 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3387A669 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-x234.google.com (mail-yk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E58E182F for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:16:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykek76 with SMTP id k76so59126448yke.0 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:16:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=V/uK5tdiKTbrzNgFZViNBCLOkt48qh1esVuy2ida/Kk=; b=bPad5ftxfvgwWcG+jNdQb83A00Wkdvy7oElL6k9KbWg0lmWaxYw/58NrnuIMX0dU8P DRW3himXOAhY88EWwIdStAloV4/CxM10y3y+cZy57SuUY4mdXMyiMLxQWabM5BRZLXZG XfmwEyUoA+esOnitERPhTu5AJxcTBJSubd9Lqt0cqNH4qC8gTHwA+cHsHBrAI6Eo0a1C pmJAv7sPS5Hwn1xhMBl9Wak0UAaPmTax5GK5Ti44pT5+1w/+asoKOLKyKALaUj6lx7cF Y1WbPOEAbhxBUZuq6k2waRHTjpNnd39ADu0m9+uNDRvFOZ6K/s6kxqdaxHVrn/+CPyxU 8dXg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.27.46 with SMTP id q14mr34327005vdg.29.1427717800055; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.244.113 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:16:40 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Galera ports From: Pavel Timofeev To: ports-list freebsd , horia@racoviceanu.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:16:41 -0000 Hi! I'm a bit surprised that we don't have ports for galera cluster. I want to discuss about them a little bit. In short about galera and how it works (how I understand it): it's a kind of cluster of MySQL-based DBs. They support MySQL, Percona and MariaDB right now. Web site http://galeracluster.com/. ~Components: 1. A special version of MySQL-based DB daemon, patched to work with wsrep API. It can be MySQL Galera Cluster, Percona XtraDB Cluster or MariaDB Galera CLuster. 2. A common "plugin" for them all, which is plugged in through my.cnf. It's called "Galera 3 wsrep provider library" usually. 3. Arbitrator - a DB daemon without data to prevent split-brain and etc. Cluster version of MySQL-based DB daemons are usually(always?) synced with non-cluster regular versions. We have a port only for #2 now - databases/galera (which is useless in such case, no?). There is no port for #3 at all. There are a couple of PRs to add #1 to ports tree, which were created about a year ago. No progress since then. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=galera. However, I'd like to discuss about something. It's just my thoughts. 1. As you can see those PRs are trying to add *-server and *-client ports for each of clustered MySQL-based DBs (I know, not for Percona). Is there any need to add another yet version of client? What's a reason to make *-client ports? Because nothing depends on *-server ports. IMO we should use regular ports for clients and add only a server part, as Linuxes does. For example, databases/mysql56-client for MySQL Galera Cluster. In such case a lot of work to add a dependency for new *-client is not needed. 2. How *-server ports should be named? At first glance the obvious names are: databases/mysql5[56]-galera-cluster databases/percona5[56]-xtradb-cluster databases/mariadb(55|100)-galera-cluster Not bad, but what about the same names, but without (galera|xtradb) word? Or without "cluster" word. Like databases/mysql56-cluster next to databases/mysql56-server and databases/mysql56-client. How do you think?