On May 2, 2013 3:08 AM, "Marlen Caemmerer"
<marlen.caemmerer(a)wikimedia.de>
wrote:
Hey,
On Wed, 1 May 2013, Ryan Lane wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
> | [...]
>
> There were never answers to this, so I bring it up here
> again:
>
> 1. How were "almost /all/ of the problems the TS have had
> with replication" "caused by that redundancy and trying
> to keep it synced"?
Ryan, repeaters are from the root of a program inwhich start the initial
setup.
Thanks for this question :) - I also want to know.
From my perspective it does not look like this and even the data
inconsistencies
appear when we have no commons copy on a mysql instance.
And: DaB experimented with federated tables for
commons too and we
decided to not do this since it does not perform from the start.
Probably nowadays when I planned something new in this
area (which does
not seem to make sense for TS) I'd really give Galera a try -
http://codership.com/content/using-galera-cluster
>>
>> 2. What limitation will the Toolserver have at some point?
>>
>>
> As to #2: From what I've been told this has to do with future sharding
> plans for the databases, and due to a change in how we'll be doing
> replication. Of course, I've heard this in passing. For answers to both
of
> these questions you'll need to talk to
binasher and/or notpeter on IRC,
as
they are the
ones doing the database work.
Thanks for telling...
Cheers
Marlen/nosy
_______________________________________________
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list:
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette