On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 12:20:29PM -0800, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>> This get's me to the 1 to 1 configuration that  Brad also mentioned.
>> Although we know we can do 1 to many, it doesnt look like many to 1 is
>> appropriate for subscribe sets.
>
> Right, what Brad said was right: you need to distinguish
> _communication_ path and _active data_ paths.  There's nothing wrong
> with the nodes communicating with one another, but there's something
> wrong with the idea that you can get the same data from two places at
> the same time.
>
>> Just trying to make this as fault tolerant but efficient as I can..
>> Obviously being able to lose a provider without manual intervention
>> would be ideal,but don't see that quite yet :)
>
> It's not possible.  If you lose a node, and want to switch away from
> it, you need to issue a FAILOVER command.
>

However if I lose a Slave node which is a provider to a Query node, I
don't only lose the Slave, but in all reality I lose the Slave and the
Qslave (since it's getting it's data from the Slave node). Unless you
are citing that I would actually do a switchover/failover against the
Slave nodes which are talking to the Qnodes.. I may need to change the
subject or create another thread. But I'm close, but I continue to
have to rebuild my QSLAVE host after failing the SLAVE host (it's
provider).

the concept of using failover/switchover on subscriber nodes is new to
me (okay, sorry since I'm cascading for the first time, it's all a new
concept)., I normally reserved considered failover/switchover on the
Master/Slaves, but not on the SLAVES/QSLAVES (oh crud, just got all
twisted!).

No response necessary unless you can see my confusion and want to
help. Otherwise you guys have allowed me to make some headway and I'm
close but that middle tier is causing some issues when I remove or
otherwise disable a forwarder node that is not the master.

Thanks
Tory