Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
--On Saturday, July 29, 2006 9:15 PM +0100 Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha <strange at nsk.no-ip.org> wrote: >> > On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:27:08PM +0200, Ondrej Jombik wrote: >> >> - partition-A (service-A) will be master on machine1 and slave on >> >> machine2 - partition-B (service-B) will be master on machine2 and >> >> slave on machine1 Is this possible? >> >> Does someone have this in production? > > You're distributing your load between two machines. That's a good thing > to do. An otherwise idle server will be put to good use instead of just > waiting for the other to fail. > > I see no drawback, only benefits, assuming that there's no convoluted > dependency between them. The main drawback is: what happens when one server fails? Can a single server handle the full load previously handled by 2 servers? You _must_ over-provision if you want services to stay fully functional in fail-over mode. If one server can't handle the load in active/standby, then it can't handle the load in active/failed. Now in many cases being up but slow is better than being down, but be _very_ sure you understand the risk decision you're making. -- Carson