hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Misty Stanley-Jones <mstanleyjo...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Replication terminology "master-master"
Date Fri, 28 Nov 2014 01:15:19 GMT
I don't think active/passive is what we mean here, since both clusters are
fully "active" from the perspective of clients, right? The slave cluster is
not actually read-only, is it?

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> master - master?
>
> Do you mean active - active ?
>
> replace master and slave with active and passive.
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Misty Stanley-Jones <
> mstanleyjones@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think "master-master" is a term that should be re-thought. It is not
> > really a "type" of replication, but refers to a characteristic of  a
> > cluster, specifically a cluster which participates in multiple clusters
> > with different roles -- it is a slave in one cluster and a master in
> > another cluster. I think with the current terminology, people confuse it
> > with "cyclical" replication, in which two clusters replicate to each
> other,
> > and eventually each has all the data from both.
> >
> > Since master-master in this sense is really not a type of replication, I
> > think we should just scrap it. You can have master-slave replication or
> > cyclical replication, or a combination. With master-slave replication, a
> > cluster can fulfill both roles at the same time, as long as it is in
> > different clusters. This is easy to understand as a sort of recursive
> > cascade.
> >
> > Am I explaining it right, and what do you guys think about changing our
> > terminology?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Misty
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message