Is it possible to configure a read-only server that remains slave even though no more masters are available with MariaDB Maxscale 6.
I tried it with a readconroute router, but that one turned the slave eventually in to a master as well.
/Theo
If you are using the mariadbmon monitor, you can use the servers_no_promotion parameter to list the server you want to remain read-only.
For galeramon there should be no need to keep servers as read-only as all functioning nodes are capable of receiving writes.
Related
I have a device that collect data and implement a web server to show them. This should connect to a switch to be visible in the network. My problem is that it must be installed in different scenarios, I mean, sometimes the switch is configured for network autonegotiation (speed and duplex), in other cases the switch is configured in fixed mode (say 100M full duplex).
Is there a way/best practice to configure my device so that it can work in both cases? One idea could be to create a web page from where the user can select the connection mode, but, if a wrong setting is selected, I lost the connection to the device.
It is found that some BizTalk Receive Locations are disabled after server reboot (BizTalk server and SQL Server are separately installed to different physical servers)
Is there any idea on this scenario? Due to the boot sequence or other issues?
I will assume that, once you enable the receive locations manually, they are working correctly.
Typically, when FILE receive locations fail while pointing to an external server/share, it is because they are no longer available.
Make sure that, during the night, there are no network issues, planned/unplanned downtime of the share (= here your SQL server). A BizTalk receive location will retry to access a share for quite a while before disabling itself. Check the event log(s) for more information. You would want to look for errors/warnings there indicating an issue with connectivity between BizTalk and SQL.
Another issue might be that there are too many connections between your BizTalk server and SQL server. You can provide a maximum number of connections in the FILE share properties.
Also, you could try this link: https://serverfault.com/questions/235032/intermittent-connection-to-windows-7-shared-folder-from-windows-xp-workstations
It describes a potential fix for optimizing throughput for file sharing, although it depends on your operating system.
I have setup symfony mysql site with mysql master slave configuration. How ever while testing with jmeter I observed that almost all load is going to master and 1-2% to the server.
Referred how to use master-slave but couldn't help. Is there any specific parameter to influence Server to pick slave connection?
PS- I am performing all read operations only
Doctrine will use the master for all queries after any kind of update.
You can tell doctrine to switch back to a slave after inserts/updates:
$em->flush();
$em->getConnection()->connect('slave');
You could also check whether you have a request listener doing inserts/updates, and apply that fix.
I am currently in the process of creating 3 Neo4j High Availability servers. My business logic leaves one server as a dedicated master, while the other two machines are dedicated slaves. My slaves exist in an entirely different datacenter than my master.
What is the best method to establish a link between the two applications? I've been able to establish connections using OpenVPN, but am curious if that would be better than like SSH port forwarding? I'm not entirely sure how Zookeeper needs to communicate with each other node. A VPN connection only creates a one-way connection, where my master, for example, can create a connection with slave, but could not create one with its master. (I think?)
How should I do this? Thanks!
PS: My master is using an embedded instance of Neo4j, while the slaves are stand-alone instances (if this matters).
So your setup is not about availability as the slaves cannot become masters anyway?
Just about replication to the other datacenter?
You also need to take the neo4j coordinator (zookeeper) into account which is usually needed for all cluster participants.
My colleague suggested that you might get away with just putting the zookeeper (perhaps even just a single one as you don't need master election) directly besides your master server.
Then the ability to connect into the masters' VPN should be enough for the slaves to pull updates.
We are having a active-active BizTalk cluster with windows server as software load balancer. The solution includes a SAP receive adapter accepting inbound rfc calls. The goal is to make SAP adapter high availabile.
Read the documentation (), it does says 'You must always cluster the SAP receive adapter to accommodate a two-phase commit scenario.' and 'hosts running the receive handlers for FTP, MSMQ, POP3, SQL, and SAP require a clustering mechanism to provide high availability.'
What we currently did in both the active-active node for BizTalk, we have a host instance enabled. With refering to above documentation, does it mean we did it incorrectly? We should take the clustered host instance instead the active-active deployment?
thanks for all the help in advance.
You need to cluster the host that handles the SAP receive. What this means is that you will always have only one instance of the adapter running at any given time and if one of the server goes down, the other will pick up.
Compare this with your scenario where you simply have two (non-clustered) instances running concurrently: yes, this gives you high availability - but also deadlocks! The two will run independently of each other... With the cluster scenario above, they will run one at the time
To cluster the SAP receive host: open the admin console, find the host, right-click and Cluster.