However, now if your one galera node goes down, then that whole data
center is disconnected. What is worse: if a node is disconnected long
enough that it cannot do incremental state snapshot, then it will need
to take a full copy of another galera node. Your replication slaves
are now useless, you need to re-provision them too from the same
backup.
If you don't plan to have dozens of read-only nodes, I would strongly
consider using just galera clustering for all nodes. The simplicity is
worth the cost of more traffic.
henrik
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "codership" group.
> To post to this group, send email to codersh...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to codership-tea...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/codership-team?hl=en.
>
--
henri...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc
My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
Henrik is right. Unfortunately your suspicions are correct too: if you
have 3 Galera nodes at each datacenter, the traffic between datacenters
is tripled. One day this will be fixed, but no ETA.
However replication traffic is normally way smaller than the client
one, so there is a good chance it does not add much to out-of-datacenter
traffic you already have.
Regards,
Alex
--
Alexey Yurchenko,
Codership Oy, www.codership.com
Skype: alexey.yurchenko, Phone: +358-400-516-011
I guess you have a typo there: "amount of data", not "amount of time".
> This means in 3 data-centers scenario, the data will flow from one
> node to
> another, i.e. 2 times rather then 3.
>
> Thanks.
You're right in your assumptions. However, I understood it so that the
idea is to have 2 datacenters, 3 nodes each. This way external traffic
triples.
Regards,
Alex