| 1 |
Jeff Smelser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 02 November 2005 02:23 pm, kashani wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Because once you start caring about your db that much it's usually |
| 6 |
>>easier to setup a crap box that replicates off your master. Then you can |
| 7 |
>>lock the whole db on your slave and do a mysqldump without causing |
| 8 |
>>issues on your main db regardless of which table type you're using. You |
| 9 |
>>also get the added benefit of a hot backup and no I/O hits on the main db. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> No, thats unfeasable.. Your talking about little DB's.. I have a 300+ gig |
| 12 |
> dbs's here and replication isnt the answer. Specially considering it is |
| 13 |
> statement level over row level. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Don't think you could have brought up the fact that you're complaining |
| 16 |
about the shortcomings of Mysql in an entirely different class than I |
| 17 |
and likely the original poster were talking about? I'd have wanted to |
| 18 |
know a bit more about the setup before attempting to needlessly |
| 19 |
complicating everything. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So yes, if your db is 20 GB or less, what I mentioned will probably |
| 22 |
work without too much trouble. If your db is 100 GB or larger, you're |
| 23 |
likely spending enough on hardware and software to solve your issues |
| 24 |
that some vendor will offer to buy you flaming Tiki drinks so it's not |
| 25 |
all bad. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
kashani |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives