469,112 Members | 2,030 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,112 developers. It's quick & easy.

Redundancy ?

Hi Guys,

I'm missing something in the MySQL clustering design. In the basic
design outlined in the How-To, there are two NDBD nodes, a manager node
and a MySQL node (ndb). If I now write an application that connects to
the single MySQL node, and it fails ... well then the redundant NDBD
nodes on the back end don't seem to help much.

Am I missing something here? I want put a design together to has no
single point of failure.

Thanks
Warrick
Nov 1 '05 #1
3 1981
>I'm missing something in the MySQL clustering design. In the basic
design outlined in the How-To, there are two NDBD nodes, a manager node
and a MySQL node (ndb). If I now write an application that connects to
the single MySQL node, and it fails ... well then the redundant NDBD
nodes on the back end don't seem to help much.

Am I missing something here? I want put a design together to has no
single point of failure.


If you want to avoid a single point of failure, clients must be
given a list of servers to connect to, regardless of how redundant
the servers are, unless you've got multiple clients that can back
each other up (e.g. multiple web servers with identical content on
a level 4 switch, with provisions to shut off handing requests to
servers that are down). This applies to any client/server setup
(including DNS, web servers, and MySQL).

The MySQL cluster design has storage nodes and SQL nodes. A client
connects to a SQL node. Any SQL node can use any storage node.
You might get acceptable (but not as good as doing it right)
redundancy by putting a SQL node on each host with a client, and
each client tries to use only "localhost" as a server. This does
not account for failures where the client is up but the SQL node
on the same host is down (e.g. filesystem damage to programs,
network interface down, system running with limited memory too low
to run a SQL node, etc.).

The clients must also deal gracefully with the possibility that the
connection fails while it is being used: possibly by reconnecting
and starting over. Reconnecting and retrying from the current query
may be dangerous depending on the situation: you may not be on the
same database, last_insert_id() may not be set right, you may not
be in the middle of a transaction, various modes might not be set
right, etc.

Gordon L. Burditt
Nov 1 '05 #2
Gordon Burditt wrote:
I'm missing something in the MySQL clustering design. In the basic
design outlined in the How-To, there are two NDBD nodes, a manager node
and a MySQL node (ndb). If I now write an application that connects to
the single MySQL node, and it fails ... well then the redundant NDBD
nodes on the back end don't seem to help much.

Am I missing something here? I want put a design together to has no
single point of failure.

If you want to avoid a single point of failure, clients must be
given a list of servers to connect to, regardless of how redundant
the servers are, unless you've got multiple clients that can back
each other up (e.g. multiple web servers with identical content on
a level 4 switch, with provisions to shut off handing requests to
servers that are down). This applies to any client/server setup
(including DNS, web servers, and MySQL).

The MySQL cluster design has storage nodes and SQL nodes. A client
connects to a SQL node. Any SQL node can use any storage node.
You might get acceptable (but not as good as doing it right)
redundancy by putting a SQL node on each host with a client, and
each client tries to use only "localhost" as a server. This does
not account for failures where the client is up but the SQL node
on the same host is down (e.g. filesystem damage to programs,
network interface down, system running with limited memory too low
to run a SQL node, etc.).

The clients must also deal gracefully with the possibility that the
connection fails while it is being used: possibly by reconnecting
and starting over. Reconnecting and retrying from the current query
may be dangerous depending on the situation: you may not be on the
same database, last_insert_id() may not be set right, you may not
be in the middle of a transaction, various modes might not be set
right, etc.

Gordon L. Burditt


I would see this as a MySQL design weekness then, as in MSSQL server
clustering you can have a virtual IP address. If the primary box dies,
the secondary will pickup the IP of the failed machine and any client
using an ODBC connection etc, would simply try to re-connect, but this
time hitting the backup machine. I may be wrong, but that sounds a lot
cleaner than what you've just described.
Nov 1 '05 #3
>I would see this as a MySQL design weekness then, as in MSSQL server
clustering you can have a virtual IP address. If the primary box dies,
the secondary will pickup the IP of the failed machine and any client
using an ODBC connection etc, would simply try to re-connect, but this
time hitting the backup machine. I may be wrong, but that sounds a lot
cleaner than what you've just described.


What you described requires a lot of magic with routers that I don't
think a database will have or should have privileges to do (and I
don't believe MSSQL is capable of doing it). It will be very
difficult to arrange a hosting setup where you can do this with the
backup server in a different city (or country) from the primary
server, and you can transparently switch routing for that IP from
one to the other.

You certainly shouldn't have the primary and the backup server on
the same Ethernet wire - that's a single point of failure. Routing
to a particular IP address is also a single point of failure. Also,
BGP can take a while to get routing to converge.

Gordon L. Burditt
Nov 1 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by ChrisRath | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Dave White | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by kglaser89 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.