Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
If you already have a drbd volume set up, then it would certainly be *easier* to just move the files to the other volume. However database replication in MySQL and other modern databases is very well developed, and likely the better choice in this case. I'm not a DB expert, but the chance of a disk failure in the middle of a DB operation corrupting the data certainly exists. If you are replicating this data, there is presumably a higher chance of replicating that corruption to your secondary drbd node. Replication within the actual application should be more robust. If there is a failure during a write on the primary database, the secondary database will simply not have received the write. Assuming the application is designed well, it will return a write failure, and the secondary database will be in a perfectly usable state. If everything that used storage had built in replication, there would probably not be a need for drbd. -dvd jeffb wrote: > My personal opinion on that one is that MySQL replication would be > easier, but I've never actually set it up. DRBD is not very difficult to > set up either though, and it's been nothing but rock solid for us for > years (5 years now I think). > > > On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 00:07 +0100, Peter Müller wrote: >> I am not sure what will be better/easier: setting up mysql replication or moving all database-files to the drbd-partition. What do you think? >> >> Greetings, >> Peter >> > > _______________________________________________ > drbd-user mailing list > drbd-user at lists.linbit.com > http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user