jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From AdamR <adam.r...@runbox.com>
Subject Clustering with database replication
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:01:04 GMT

Hi all,

I've been playing with an unusual clustering model and would like your
feedback. It seems to me that my solution may be applicable to a wide range
of situations - assuming there are no glaring problems that I have not
thought of. 

Contsraints:
1) There is only one read/write cluster node (master) and many read-only
nodes (slaves)
2) It is not practical for the cluster nodes to share a common database or
file system

The second constraint is the most significant as Jackrabbit clustering
requires all nodes to share a common DB or file system for persistance
manager storage and the cluster journal. This is not desirable for my
application. At worst it introduces a single point of failure, at best
unwanted complexity configuring a database/SAN cluster to gaurantee the
shared storage will always be available.

My solution is to store as much as possible - the PM storage, datastore,
cluster journal etc - in a database, and use database replication to keep
the Jackrabbit slaves up-to-date with the Jackrabbit master.

Every node in the cluster is configured to look only in it's local database,
it has no dependencies on any other node or any shared storage. Each slave
Jackrabbit has an exact copy of the master's cluster journal, allowing it to
keep it's indexes up-to-date whenever changes are made.

I've been testing this using MySQL and it appears to work well. My only
worry is around the management of the cluster journal. On the master, the
local_revisions table contains one row for itself, which obviously always
contains the latest revision ID. The table does not contain any data for the
other cluster nodes (the MySQL replication only works in one direction),
which it has no knowledge about. As far as I can tell this table is only
used to determine which items from the journal need to be processed on each
node, therfore so long as each node's copy of the local_revisions table has
itself in, it should be fine?

So what do people think? I realise this is probably an unusual way of
deploying a Jackrabbit cluster - but I think it works. 

Cheers,
Adam

 
    
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Clustering-with-database-replication-tp25132305p25132305.html
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message