Here’s the last nail in the coffin. We hope this convinces you not to write to multiple masters with MySQL replication. Reason 10 – No tools to reconcile inconsistent masters For all the endless reasons we’ve alr
If you’re not convinced yet that writing to dual masters is a bad idea, we have a couple more reasons. 9. Temp tables break replication after restart MySQL’s replication is sensitive to temporary tables. You shouldn
Writing to two masters is like walking around with a loaded shotgun. Eventually one of your instances will fail and when it does, replications position & synchronization information could easily become corrupt! Reason 8 ̵
Continuing our discussion of multi-master replication, we hit on five more reasons why writing to two masters aka active-active replication is very dangerous. Click through to the end for multi-master solutions that work with MySQ
Among the myriad data integrity and corruption risks associated with active-active replication, you also lose out on configurability and operational flexibility. Reason 7 – Can’t add nodes easily The often touted solut
MySQL slaves can drift out of sync. Many of our clients are surprised to find some data differences in their replication topology, once we do some checking and sniffing around. Such checks require a single reliable or authoritativ
In MySQL database operations, you often need to rebuild slaves. They fail for a lot of different reasons, fall out of sync or crash. When this happens you may find you need to reclone and start fresh. This is normally done by find
MySQL offers a few different options for how you perform replication. Statement-based has been around a lot longer, and though it has some troublesome characteristics they’re known well and can be managed. What’s more
Multi-master replication provides redundant copies of your most important business assets. What’s more it allows applications to scale out, which is perfect for cloud hosting solutions like Amazon Web Services. But when you