LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Home Forums Tutorials Articles Register
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-07-2009, 10:53 PM   #1
Swakoo
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: Red Hat / Fedora / CentOS
Posts: 508

Rep: Reputation: 30
Load Balancing Database Server (MySQL)


Hi everyone,

I am toying with the idea of using a load balancer (css11501) to balance traffic request coming in from my web servers to the database, for read and write.

The database servers will be VMs seating across various physical nodes, and will have a shared database store over iSCSI.

Is that feasible?

GFS handles the file level locking... but without MySQL cluster, will this work?
 
Old 09-08-2009, 02:38 AM   #2
zhjim
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Distribution: Debian Squeeze x86_64
Posts: 1,748
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Load Balancing is always a good idea if something is working it's a.. feet of but when I think about your setup I would not do it.
Like I see it and I say you to the bottleneck for mysql (or db servers in generel) is either the memory or the diskaccess. Memory is nice but also high in price and you would nearly need enough to have all the databases inside memory.
When it comes to disk I think you totaly give in to problems. If you have all MySQL VM's read from the same medium i'd say your screwed.
None the less if you just mount the db data readonly I dare to say it'll work. But there sure be cases where you'll get errors or old data for a statement.

I would look into some good replication strategy and loadbalance this or pay a huge amount of money for a lot of memory.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 04:21 AM   #3
Swakoo
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: Red Hat / Fedora / CentOS
Posts: 508

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Hi there,

so you're saying if I want to scale my database, I should either:

1) get lots of memory with faster disk access

2) Or use replication and scale the read only

If I am just thinking about HA and data backup, will having 2 nodes (HA) sharing a shared storage (say iSCSI) for shared data store be suitable? If I virtualize it?

Or should I just stick to physical?
 
Old 09-12-2009, 11:53 AM   #4
zhjim
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Distribution: Debian Squeeze x86_64
Posts: 1,748
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swakoo View Post
If I am just thinking about HA and data backup, will having 2 nodes (HA) sharing a shared storage (say iSCSI) for shared data store be suitable? If I virtualize it?

Or should I just stick to physical?
I guess for HA a shared storage sure is an option and sure is the best failover method (you just switch progamm but the data remains the same and is up to date). It does not matters if virtual or physical (pretending you have the two on diffrent machines).

If you go just for backup it does not really matter if shared on physical or virtual it's the same mechanic you get your data from...

Dunno whats your goal your after but in my opionion virtual is only for CPU and maybe MEM intensive solutions. When it goes down to the hardware it's just bound to it like every other HA solution...
 
Old 09-12-2009, 12:00 PM   #5
EricTRA
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2009
Location: Gibraltar, Gibraltar
Distribution: Fedora 20 with Awesome WM
Posts: 6,805
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297Reputation: 1297
Hi,

I played some time ago with the idea of load balancing MySQL also. Our setup is using two nodes, virtual machines in VMWare ESX. I use heartbeat for HA. After some trial I decided to go with master-master replication on MySQL databases and that works like a charm and has been running for about three months now without any problems or load on the server/cpu/memory. With the first trials on load balancing I got heavy memory usage and after trying master-master replication I stuck with that.

Kind regards,

Eric
 
  


Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Load Balancing Server cocobra798 Linux - Server 1 12-04-2008 09:59 PM
LVS is load balancing ok but it does not recognize a server as down if it goes down abefroman Linux - Networking 0 09-04-2005 10:23 PM
mail server load balancing------------- pal Linux - Networking 2 09-02-2005 10:28 AM
mail server load balancing kanwar_rajan Linux - Networking 1 09-24-2004 05:23 AM
load balancing: mail server bswrj Linux - Networking 5 05-12-2003 05:29 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration