On May 2, 2013 3:08 AM, "Marlen Caemmerer" <marlen.caemmerer@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Ryan Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim@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@lists.wikimedia.org)
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette