Hi, This is from a newbie's perspective. I like that B option and C. C option probably doable provided that there's a check to make sure containers are on different hosts. Maybe it would be overkill to provide ks file to deploy containers that would create DR for MariaDB on two different hosts or more. 2015-04-17 18:40 GMT+08:00 Honza Horak <hhorak@redhat.com>:
We're having quite interesting discussion about what users expect from general mariadb docker image, so trying to reach out (future) consumers.
I see few options, from simple to feature rich scenarios, so let's take three examples..
A) simple one would only include installed packages and run the mysqld server with default configuration. (That one would probably be almost unusable, since users wouldn't have easy way to initialize datadir..)
B) the image would include scripts that help to initialize datadir, set basic authentication (if given) and also offers to import some dump during initialization, e.g.:
#> docker run -v /mydata:/var/lib/mysql mariadb #> docker run -v /mydata:/var/lib/mysql -v /dump.sql:/expected/dir mariadb #> docker run -e ROOT_PASS=abcdefgh -v /mydata:/var/lib/mysql mariadb
C) full featured image that offers simple master/slave replication just by running:
#> docker run -e TYPE=master mariadb #> docker run -e TYPE=slave -e MASTER=172.16.1.12 mariadb
There are some advocates of the C) but IMHO it is not doable to deliver general enough solution for master/slave (thinking about failover scenarious in the first place), right?
So B) sounds much more useful and I'd prefer such docker images.
Does anybody has a different opinion? (either developer/user PoV would be welcome)
Honza
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp