[Nottingham] MySQL backed nameserver

[Johannes Kling]

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 02:30:49AM -0800, James Dobson wrote:
> If you are still sold on a DB I suggest using mysql cluster as it
> holds the DB in memory which is obviously *MUCH* quicker than a
> harddisk.

It sounds like it'll mostly be a read-only database, so normal file
caching keeps the databases in memory most of the time anyway
(provided the box has enough RAM going spare). Several
of the "mostly read" MySQL boxes at work, for example, have absolutely
no disc I/O except for a steady trickle of logs getting written - the
rest is served from cached files in memory. Admittably this is
probably slightly less efficient than the application itself managing
the memory, but the setup is considerably easier to get right (not
least because some cooperation from the applications using it is
highly desirable).

The greatest advantage of MySQL Cluster is, well, that it's both a HA
and a HP cluster. If a single machine simply cannot keep up with the
load anymore(*) or you absolutely definitely cannot ever have the
database unavailable, it's fantastic. Depending on the scope of the
project, it's quite possibly overkill, though.

Regards,
  Jo