Read only I believe is a server wide var, but again, I am not certain. Replication should also be server wide , ie. no replication rules, including which databases should be considered for replication. Just recently learned what kind of problems it can cause otherwise. On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:56 AM, der.hans wrote: > Am 24. Jul, 2010 schwätzte Alex Dean so: > > moin moin, > >> I think you should consider replicating to multiple slaves.  1 is for >> backup, and is totally read-only. > > That's my goal. First I need to get all of the DBen going to at least one > slave and make sure we've backing up everything that needs to be backed > up. > >> >> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/server-system-variables.html#sysvar_read_only > > This is per DB? If db1 is a slave DB, I can set it as read-only, but keep > db2, which is a local DB, as read-write? > >> Another slave, for reporting, can have more relaxed rules.  If people want >> to mess with the data there, no harm.  If they screw it up too horribly, >> restore a backup onto the reporting database and continue as before.  You >> need to get > > I still want the replicated parts to be read-only. Yes, I want reporting > environments seperate from production slaves. > >> them to script any changes they're making, so they're easy to re-apply >> after you restore the testing database.  (If there are certain columns they >> add, or aggregating tables they find useful, they should be able to run 1 >> script to re-create them.  This removes the "we can't restore, it'll ruin >> all my custom work!" complaint.) > > Great idea. This will be the hardest to push through, but I think we can > do it. > >> Plan to periodically take a backup from your live database, and use that >> re-init your slaves.  MySQL replication is quite good, but I still have seen >> some odd situations where replication can mess up.  Since a full live diff >> of the 2 servers (which would check all data and verify you're in sync) >> isn't really feasible, I think it's safest to take backups from the prod >> server on a somewhat-infrequent basis. > > I'll have to think about this one. I see your point and agree with it. I > might instead tackle it via audits. I like audits for the potential of > catching slow corruption. Might do both :). > > ciao, > > der.hans > -- > #  http://www.LuftHans.com/Classes        http://www.TwoGeekTechs.com/ > #  Director of Engineering, FonWallet Transaction Solutions, Inc. > #  Fairy Tale, n.: A horror story to prepare children for the newspapers. > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss