Re: Slightly OT - SQL- Clustering

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2006

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 66725
interpreted = N
texte = Well all depends what you need. In the cases that I have worked with, all requests came into a server which was running a load balancer, this server then forwarded requests to a pool of servers standing by waiting for requests. On the ring was one MySQL database server (one worked fine) which supplied data to the web servers, if they requested it. This setup was managing a web site w/CMS accessed worldwide for perhaps the largest research organization of its type. If need be you could set up that SQL server as a master and have unlimited slave SQL servers branching from it if need be.Something neat about this setup is we had created an image for our web servers, so if we had one go down, we could replace it in little time.Clint Davis wrote:> When dealing with a cluster of SQL servers, you have to have a master that> replicates it's data on a regular basis to the slaves. You could also submit> every SQL transaction to every SQL server, but this seems like a waste of> resources.>>> On 4/4/06 7:46 AM, "Pat McCormick" wrote:>> >> For me, the confusing thing about clustering multiple servers is>> understanding how the cluster handles huge loads.>>>> Is the general idea that user sessions are distributed to and>> maintained with one of multiple servers? If that is the case, does>> each server have a synchronized copy of the database(s), or are there>> multiple web servers all accessing a single SQL server? Perhaps there>> can be a web cluster that interacts with an SQL cluster.>>>> I've been blissfully ignorant about these things because I haven't>> hit the wall with WebDNA like Ken has. I guess the gist of my>> question is simply how difficult is it to deal with a cluster of>> database servers versus a single server?>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/> -------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: Slightly OT - SQL- Clustering ( Adam O'Connor 2006)
Re: Slightly OT - SQL- Clustering ( Clint Davis 2006)
Slightly OT - SQL- Clustering ( Pat McCormick 2006)

Well all depends what you need. In the cases that I have worked with, all requests came into a server which was running a load balancer, this server then forwarded requests to a pool of servers standing by waiting for requests. On the ring was one MySQL database server (one worked fine) which supplied data to the web servers, if they requested it. This setup was managing a web site w/CMS accessed worldwide for perhaps the largest research organization of its type. If need be you could set up that SQL server as a master and have unlimited slave SQL servers branching from it if need be.Something neat about this setup is we had created an image for our web servers, so if we had one go down, we could replace it in little time.Clint Davis wrote:> When dealing with a cluster of SQL servers, you have to have a master that> replicates it's data on a regular basis to the slaves. You could also submit> every SQL transaction to every SQL server, but this seems like a waste of> resources.>>> On 4/4/06 7:46 AM, "Pat McCormick" wrote:>> >> For me, the confusing thing about clustering multiple servers is>> understanding how the cluster handles huge loads.>>>> Is the general idea that user sessions are distributed to and>> maintained with one of multiple servers? If that is the case, does>> each server have a synchronized copy of the database(s), or are there>> multiple web servers all accessing a single SQL server? Perhaps there>> can be a web cluster that interacts with an SQL cluster.>>>> I've been blissfully ignorant about these things because I haven't>> hit the wall with WebDNA like Ken has. I guess the gist of my>> question is simply how difficult is it to deal with a cluster of>> database servers versus a single server?>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/> -------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Adam O'Connor

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: Slightly OT - SQL- Clustering

2006

Top Articles:

Related Readings: