In Part I, we introduced a High Availability (HA) framework for MySQL hosting and discussed various components and their functionality. Now in Part II, we will discuss the details of MySQL semisynchronous replication and the related configuration settings that help us ensure redundancy and consistency of the data in our HA setup. Make sure to check back in for Part III where we will review various failure scenarios that could arise and the way the framework responds and recovers from these conditions.

What is MySQL Semisynchronous Replication?

Simply put, in a …

Background

Eventual consistency is a consistency model used in many large distributed databases which requires that all changes to a replicated piece of data eventually reach all affected replicas; conflict resolution is not handled and responsibility is pushed up to the application author in the event of conflicting updates [13].

Eventual consistency is a specific form of weak consistency; the storage system guarantees that if no new updates are made to the object, eventually all accesses will return the last updated value [14]. If no failures occur, the maximum size of the inconsistency window can be determined based on factors such as communication delays, the load on the system, and the number of replicas involved in the replication scheme [3].

A few examples of eventually consistent systems:

• DNS
• Asynchronous master/slave replication on an RDBMS e.g. MariaDB
• memcached in front …

“For analytical things, eventual consistency is ok (as long as you can know after you have run them if they were consistent or not). For real world involving money or resources it’s not necessarily the case.” — Michael “Monty” Widenius. In a recent interview, I asked Justin Sheehy, Chief Technology Officer at Basho Technologies, maker [...]

“For analytical things, eventual consistency is ok (as long as you can know after you have run them if they were consistent or not). For real world involving money or resources it’s not necessarily the case.” — Michael “Monty” Widenius. In a recent interview, I asked Justin Sheehy, Chief Technology Officer at Basho Technologies, maker [...]

The CAP Theorem has become a convenient excuse for throwing data consistency under the bus. It is automatically assumed that every distributed system falls prey to CAP and therefore must sacrifice one of the three objectives, with consistency being the consistent fall guy. This automatic assumption is simply false. I am not debating the validity of the CAP Theorem, but instead positing that the onset of CAP limitations—what I call the CAP event horizon—does not start as soon as you move to a second master database node. Certain approaches can, in fact, extend the CAP event horizon.
Physics tells us that different properties apply at different scales. For example, quantum physics displays properties that do not apply at larger scale. We see similar nuances in scaling databases. For example, if you are running a master slave database, using synchronous replication with a single slave is no problem. Add nine more slaves and it slows the …

Very nice and interesting post from Michael Stonebraker explaining how errors dictate CAP Theorem (Consistency, Availability and Partition-tolerance); as only one objective from the CAP can be achieved during normal error conditions as NoSQL system seems to relax the consistency model as CAP theorem anyway proves that one can’t get all 3 at the same [...]