MYSQL 5.X
i want to know how can we replicate 5 different master server to a single server having 5 DB instances in MYSQL replication. what are advantages and disadavntages.
If you know how to
configure several MySQL servers on the same machine (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/multiple-servers.html)
configure replication between a master and a slave (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/replication-howto.html)
then you are good to go, I believe.
What is the purpose of this replication?
If for backup purposes only, then I do not see any disadvantage, especially if you run 5 separate instances of MySQL on the backup machine.
Just make sure your hardware is fast enough to deal with the combined activity of the 5 masters.
I don't see any other useful application for this setup.
Related
Is it possible to sync 2 MYSQL databases so if you write into one it will sync add it to the other one too and other way around? I've seen some Programs that you can use on your local pc but I need a script for example php that I can upload to my vps, it checks every minute for new data and syncs it.
Is that possible?
Are you tried Mysql Replication strategies? See MySQL Replication for High Availability.
Specially Master with Backup Master (Multiple Replication)
or Master with Active Master (Circular Replication or Ring topology)
In my setup there are two debian servers. The first one is the old production server and the second is the new one. On the first (old) one runs a mysql v5.5 db-server and an old application which lags support. It cannot be ported easily to the new server. The new server runs mariadb v10.1 and all the other applications were ported from the old server to this new one. These applications have to work also with the data of the application that cannot be ported.
The ported application can only access local databases. So there is no easy way of changing the connection for these apps to the old db server.
My idea:
I want to replicate (master->slave) the data of the one database (used by the old application that is not portable) of the mysql v5.5 db server to the maraidb v10.1 db-server.
No problem so far.
But the applications on the new server not only read the data of the old application, they can also modify them. And they also have there own databases that only exists on the new server. This is a problem as far as I know and can lead to the break of the replication in some situations if the applications would try to write at the replicated database on the slave.
My next thought to solve this was that I can make use of a sql dispatcher proxy and found some interesting ones (mariadb maxscale, haproxy, proxySQL) but as far as I understood they can split read and write operations but I couldn't find a way to route write operations for different databases to different servers.
Can Anybody give me a hint to solve this problem?
Setting:
Server 1 - Mysql v5.5 - database_1
Server 2 - Mariadb v10.1 - database_1, database_2, database_3
An application on server 1 is writing and reading data from database_1 on server 1.
Other applications on server 2 are reading and writing data to database_1 on server 2.
So the data of database_1 have to be replicated from server 1 to server 2 and could be changed there.
A master-master replication instead of master-slave could work, but in reason of auto_increment fields that could break the replication and in reason of the fact that the changed data from server 2 doesn't have to exist on server 1, I think this is not the way to go. (I'm aware that I could set the auto_increment interval to two to avoid this problem, but it's an already running production system, so changes like this are not so easy).
At the moment we're doing backups by hand and copy them over but that's way to slow and I'm sure there is a better way ;)
You can use write to a replication slave (server 2) for databases like database_2 and database_3 that will never appear in the replication scream.
If you started updating database_1 you probably would end up in trouble.
You are replicating between two database server of over a major version difference so there is the possibility that a deprecated SQL statement gets replicated to a server that has it removed and the replication will stop. Keep an eye out for this in the weeks after deployment. binlog_format=ROW may mitigate some of the SQL that could got incorrectly.
I'm planning to create a system which tracks visitors clicks into the database. I'm expecting around 1M inserts/day into the Database.
On the backend, I'll have an analytics system which will analyze all the data that's been collected over the days/weeks/months/years.
My question is: is it a practical approach to have 2 different MySQL Servers + 1 Web server? MySQL Server A would insert the clicks into it's DB and it would be connected to MySQL Server B by group replication, so whenever I create reports, etc on MySQL Server B, it doesn't load Server A heavily.
These 2 Database servers would then be connected to the Web Server which would handle all the click requests and displaying the backend reports also.
Is it a practical solution, or is it better to have one bigger server to handle all the MySQL data? Or have multiple MySQL servers that are load balancing each other? Anything else perhaps?
1M inserts/day is not a high load by modern standards. That's less than 12 per second on average.
On sufficiently powerful servers with fast storage and proper tuning of MySQL options, you can expect to support at least 100x that load with a single MySQL server.
A better reason to use multiple MySQL servers is redundancy. Inevitably, any MySQL server needs to be upgraded, or you might have hardware failures and need to replace a disk, or other components. To avoid downtime, you should have a standby database server, which stays in sync with the primary server, either using MySQL replication or by disk-level replication like DRBD.
I have 3 mysql servers that i need to backup daily.. each server uses just 1 database w/ multiple tables..
I've scripted a mysql dump script on each server.. but this time i want each mysql server backing up to a 4th server (MASTER SERVER) (w/c is remote location) ..
The Master server will serve as a MIRROR for all 3 servers, so that we can view the data of the other servers even if one of them goes down, because the Master server will be on a more reliable internet connection .
NOTES and LIMITATIONS:
1) EACH SERVER needs to "send" their backups to the MASTER SERVER, because the master server can not do "incoming" connection to each slave servers (port forwarding not supported on the slaves)
2) Prefer that only the "changes" are backed up to make things lighter on the network. (synchronization? incremental?)
3) All are running windows 7 at the moment, because for now i'm using Navicat MySQL's synchronization features.. I would prefer to use a PHP script based solution so i can migrate things to *nix.. i've read about replication and all that stuff, but I kinda wanted a ready solution, perhaps a software i could download or buy or something.. I've no time to code my own sync/replication scripts/software. just wana get over this remote sync hurdle and move on w/ the project.
regards to all
i've read about replication and all that stuff, but I kinda wanted a
ready solution
But replication is a ready-solution just type a few commands and change a few configuration.
I'm completely newbie in mysql cluster. I was trying long ours to find if, when I setup magento with mysql cluster, it will write to one of the nodes or always to one node?
My second question is, when I setup mysql replication: one master and one slave, and master server die, will magento start to write on slave, or my app stop working?
Thanks a lot!
1)
Magento supports by default: 1 master and multiple read slaves.
For specific modules you can define different read/write custom connections. So, with this setup you could write data to multiple mysql master servers.
Notice: None of the large Magento hosting partners/providers (nbs, nexcess, peer1, etc) managed to have a working solution with multiple db masters.
2) No. there is no auto switch to slave.