On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:18:52 AM UTC-4, neila wrote:
> Tungsten Replicator would help and you could delay replication by just
> taking individual replicators offline. The biggest problem as Peter and Jay
> have already pointed out is conflict resolution. The replicator does not
> help with that it is still up to your application to handle conflicts as
> the replicators just take the transactions from server A and apply them to
> server B.
> On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 21:30:11 UTC+1, KTWalrus wrote:
>> Just discovered Tungsten Replicator and, according to this Link<http://datacharmer.blogspot.com/2011/11/replication-multiple-masters-...>,
>> the Replicator can set up a Star Topology. For my purposes, I want the
>> updates to flow from the distributed DBs into the central DB all the time.
>> For the updates in the other direction, I can live with them being applied
>> continuously. But, I hope that I can delay the updates to the distributed
>> DBs until off hours (when very few, if any, users are using the distributed
>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:07:40 PM UTC-4, KTWalrus wrote:
>>> My approach of using mysqlbinlog to apply transactions from multiple
>>> distributed DBs asynchronously to a central Master really doesn't involve
>>> using the built-in MySQL replication (other than relying on binlogs for row
>>> I've been thinking I should look into modifying the Slave IO Thread
>>> logic to accept relay log updates from multiple Masters. Then, I could
>>> configure my central DB as a true MySQL Master and each of the distributed
>>> DBs as true Slaves. In addition, I could make the central DB a multi-slave
>>> to each of the distributed DBs using my modifications to the Slave IO
>>> Thread logic.
>>> Basically, the modification to the Slave IO Thread logic would better
>>> simulate what I was thinking of doing with mysqlbinlog except that
>>> transactions would be ordered closer to chronological order. But, because
>>> I would now be using MySQL replication to apply updates from the central DB
>>> to the distributed DBs (skipping applying the updates that originated from
>>> a distributed DB to itself), I avoid having to rsync at night and the
>>> updates are applied much sooner (minimizing some collisions).
>>> This approach is kind of a mixture of MySQL ring replication and an
>>> asynchronous Galera cluster (where only a single DB receives all updates
>>> and all other DBs get their non-local updates from the central DB).
>>> How hard do you think it would be to modify the Slave IO Thread logic to
>>> read updates from multiple masters?
>>> Has anyone done this before and were there any lessons learned?
>>> I realize that my needs are simpler than implementing this for the
>>> general case. For one, I don't care if my non-local updates take a while
>>> to be seen in the distributed DBs. Also, admin updates can be applied to
>>> the central DB for normal MySQL replication so the only updates originating
>>> from the distributed DBs are simple row updates (insert, update, and delete
>>> all by primary key). And, I don't care if there is a large window where
>>> some user sees "stale" data (that has been updated at a separate location,
>>> but not yet locally applied).