On 10/29/2004 12:23 PM, Thomas R. Koll <tomk32(a)gmx.de> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:42:08AM -0700, Jimmy
(Jimbo) Wales wrote:
They actually called me yesterday just to let me
know that they did a
test with a remote slave to a mysql server (on their own network) and
stress tested it. They said it worked just fine, which is an
encouraging sign, although of course the devil is in the details.
Though I wouldn't prefer a mysql-only solution, it would increase security
for our data/mysql-server if we maintain a single machine for only this
purpose which would not include stuff like old and user tables.
This is a great suggestion. A simple way to achieve this would be to have a
dedicated slave (S0) that (a) replicates from the master (M) and (b) acts as
a master for the off-site slaves (S1, S2, S3...):
M -> S0 -> S1, S2, S3...
To limit which tables the off-site slaves can replicate, use
replicate-do-table as necessary in S0's my.cnf:
replicate-do-table=wikipedia.cur
Without an intermediary slave, sensitive data could exist in the relay logs
on the off-site slaves, even if the slaves were configured to ignore certain
tables with replicate-ignore-table.
Paul