Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: micah anderson (micahriseup.net)
Date: Tue Nov 10 2009 - 17:06:56 CST
Excerpts from wietse's message of Tue Nov 10 17:22:57 -0500 2009:
> micah anderson:
> > > > hosts = mysql-cluster1 mysql-cluster1
> > >
> > > This repeats the query only if the session breaks. However, the
> > > hosts are tried without delay, so this is unlikely to be a solution
> > > for kernel panics.
> > >
> > > Consider configuring more than one mysql server.
> > Actually that was the point of my original message. I setup a mysql
> > cluster, so there are multiple mysql servers in a cluster fail-over
> > scenario. The fail-over is pretty fast, maybe 1 or two seconds, but
> > that may not be fast enough for the above mechanism for repeating the
> > query when the session breaks... hence the question about
> > tunables.
> I was talking about DIFFERENT hosts instead of repeating the same
> hostname in the Postfix config file.
That makes sense.
However, the mysql_table(5) doesn't specify in the MYSQL PARAMETERS
section that the 'hosts' parameter can take different ports. The
traditional way that is handled is with a colon delimiter (e.g
127.0.0.1:3307). Is this supported, or is the documentation just
lacking that information?
I ask because I can specify different hosts, but because I am trying
to tunnel the mysql connection over stunnel, each connection requires
a separate stunnel instance and although I can run two tunnels on the
same machine, that only works if they are on different ports. I'm
suspecting that the mysql client support would allow the following to
hosts = 127.0.0.1:3306 127.0.0.1:3307
> If all your mysql servers are behind a single point of failure
> (stunnel or whatever) then you don't have redundancy, and tweaking
> Postfix solves the wrong problem.
In this case, there would be two distinct local stunnel processes,
each connecting to a different server. Ideally, I wouldn't have to
erect a teetering tower of disparate parts to encrypt the mysql
traffic, but the alternatives are rather bleak.