How much could you benefit from MySQL 5.6 parallel replication?

I have heard this question quite often: “At busy times, our replicas start lagging quite frequently. We are using N schemas, so which performance boost could we expect from MySQL 5.6 parallel replication?” Here is a quick way to give you a rough estimate of the potential benefit.

General idea

In MySQL 5.6, parallelism is added at the schema level. So in theory, if you have N schemas and if you use N parallel threads, replication could be up to N times faster. This assumes at least 2 things:

  • Replication throughput scales linearly with the number of parallel threads.
  • Writes are evenly distributed across schemas.

Both assumptions are of course not realistic. But it is easy to know the distribution of writes, and that can already give you an idea about how much you could benefit from parallel replication.

Writes are stored in binary logs but it is much easier to work with the slow query log, so we can enable full slow query logging for some time with long_query_time = 0 and then use pt-query-digest to analyze the resulting log file.

An example

I have a test server with 3 schemas, and I’ve run some sysbench load on it to get a decent slow query log file. Once done, I can run this command:

pt-query-digest --filter '$event->{arg} !~ m/^select|^set|^commit|^show|^admin|^rollback|^begin/i' --group-by db --report-format profile slow_query.log > digest.out

and here is the result I get:

# Profile
# Rank Query ID Response time  Calls  R/Call V/M   Item
# ==== ======== ============== ====== ====== ===== ====
#    1 0x       791.6195 52.1% 100028 0.0079  0.70 db3
#    2 0x       525.1231 34.5% 100022 0.0053  0.68 db1
#    3 0x       203.4649 13.4% 100000 0.0020  0.64 db2

In a perfect world, with 3 parallel threads and if each schema would handle 33% of the total write workload, I could expect a 3x performance improvement.

However here we can see in the report that the 3 replication threads will only work simultaneously 25% of the time in the best case (13.4/52.1 = 0.25). We can also expect 2 replication threads to work simultaneously for some part of the workload, but let’s ignore that for clarity.

It means that instead of the theoretical 200% performance improvement (3 parallel threads 100% of the time), we can hardly expect more than a 50% performance improvement (3 parallel threads 25% of the time). And the reality is that the benefit will be much lower than that.


Parallel replication in MySQL 5.6 is a great step forward, however don’t expect too much if your writes are not evenly distributed across all your schemas. The pt-query-digest trick I shared can give you a rough idea whether your workload is a good fit for multi-threaded slaves in 5.6.

I’m expecting much better results for 5.7, partly because parallelism is handled differently, but also because you can tune how efficient parallel replication will be by adjusting the binlog group commit settings.

The post How much could you benefit from MySQL 5.6 parallel replication? appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.

Optimizing PXC Xtrabackup State Snapshot Transfer

State Snapshot Transfer (SST) at a glance

PXC uses a protocol called State Snapshot Transfer to provision a node joining an existing cluster with all the data it needs to synchronize.  This is analogous to cloning a slave in asynchronous replication:  you take a full backup of one node and copy it to the new one, while tracking the replication position of the backup.

PXC automates this process using scriptable SST methods.  The most common of these methods is the xtrabackup-v2 method which is the default in PXC 5.6.  Xtrabackup generally is more favored over other SST methods because it is non-blocking on the Donor node (the node contributing the backup).

The basic flow of this method is:

  • The Joiner:
    • joins the cluster
    • Learns it needs a full SST and clobbers its local datadir (the SST will replace it)
    • prepares for a state transfer by opening a socat on port 4444 (by default)
    • The socat pipes the incoming files into the datadir/.sst directory
  • The Donor:
    • is picked by the cluster (could be configured or be based on WAN segments)
    • starts a streaming Xtrabackup and pipes the output of that via socat to the Joiner on port 4444.
    • Upon finishing its backup, sends an indication of this and the final Galera GTID of the backup is sent to the Joiner
  • The Joiner:
    • Records all changes from the Donor’s backup’s GTID forward in its gcache (and overflow pages, this is limited by available disk space)
    • runs the –apply-log phase of Xtrabackup on the donor
    • Moves the datadir/.sst directory contents into the datadir
    • Starts mysqld
    • Applies all the transactions it needs (Joining and Joined states just like IST does it)
    • Moves to the ‘Synced’ state and is done.

There are a lot of moving pieces here, and nothing is really tuned by default.  On larger clusters, SST can be quite scary because it may take hours or even days.  Any failure can mean starting over again from the start.

This blog will concentrate on some ways to make a good dent in the time SST can take.  Many of these methods are trade-offs and may not apply to your situations.  Further, there may be other ways I haven’t thought of to speed things up, please share what you’ve found that works!

The Environment

I am testing SST on a PXC 5.6.24 cluster in AWS.  The nodes are c3.4xlarge and the datadirs are RAID-0 over the two ephemeral SSD drives in that instance type.  These instances are all in the same region.

My simulated application is using only node1 in the cluster and is sysbench OLTP with 200 tables with 1M rows each.  This comes out to just under 50G of data.  The test application runs on a separate server with 32 threads.

The PXC cluster itself is tuned to best practices for Innodb and Galera performance


In my first test the cluster is a single member (receiving workload) and I am  joining node2.  This configuration is untuned for SST.  I measured the time from when mysqld started on node2 until it entered the Synced state (i.e., fully caught up).  In the log, it looked like this:

150724 15:59:24 mysqld_safe Starting mysqld daemon with databases from /var/lib/mysql
... lots of other output ...
2015-07-24 16:48:39 31084 [Note] WSREP: Shifting JOINED -> SYNCED (TO: 4647341)

Doing some math on the above, we find that the SST took 51 minutes to complete.


One of the first things I noticed was that the –apply-log step on the Joiner was very slow.  Anyone who uses Xtrabackup a lot will know that –apply-log will be a lot faster if you give it some extra RAM to use while making the backup consistent via the –use-memory option.  We can set this in our my.cnf like this:


The [sst] section is a special one understood only by the xtrabackup-v2 script.  inno-apply-opts allows me to specify arguments to innobackupex when it runs.

Note that this change only applies to the Joiner (i.e., you don’t have to put it on all your nodes and restart them to take advantage of it).

This change immediately makes a huge improvement to our above scenario (node2 joining node1 under load) and the SST now takes just over 30 minutes.


Another slow part of getting to Synced is how long it takes to apply transactions up to realtime after the backup is restored and in place on the Joiner.  We can improve this throughput by increasing the number of apply threads on the Joiner to make better use of the CPU.  Prior to this wsrep_slave_threads was set to 1, but if I increase this to 32  (there are 16 cores on this instance type) my SST now takes 25m 32s


xtrabackup-v2 supports adding a compression process into the datastream.  On the Donor it compresses and on the Joiner it decompresses.  This allows you to trade CPU for transfer speed.  If your bottleneck turns out to be network transport and you have spare CPU, this can help a lot.

Further, I can use pigz instead of gzip to get parallel compression, but theoretically any compression utilization can work as long as it can compress and decompress standard input to standard output.  I install the ‘pigz’ package on all my nodes and change my my.cnf like this:

decompressor="pigz -d"

Both the Joiner and the Donor must have the respective decompressor and compressor settings or the SST will fail with a vague error message (not actually having pigz installed will do the same thing).

By adding compression, my SST is down to 21 minutes, but there’s a catch.  My application performance starts to take a serious nose-dive during this test.  Pigz is consuming most of the CPU on my Donor, which is also my primary application node.  This may or may not hurt your application workload in the same way, but this emphasizes the importance of understanding (and measuring) the performance impact of SST has on your Donor nodes.

Dedicated donor

To alleviate the problem with the application, I now leave node2 up and spin up node3.  Since I’m expecting node2 to normally not be receiving application traffic directly, I can configure node3 to prefer node2 as its donor like this:

wsrep_sst_donor = node2,

When node3 starts, this setting instructs the cluster that node3 is the preferred donor, but if that’s not available, pick something else (that’s what the trailing comma means).

Donor nodes are permitted to fall behind in replication apply as needed without sending flow control.  Sending application traffic to such a node may see an increase in the amount of stale data as well as certification failures for writes (not to mention the performance issues we saw above with node1).  Since node2 is not getting application traffic, moving into the Donor state and doing an expensive SST with pigz compression should be relatively safe for the rest of the cluster (in this case, node1).

Even if you don’t have a dedicated donor, if you use a load balancer of some kind in front of your cluster, you may elect to consider Donor nodes as failing their health checks so application traffic is diverted during any state transfer.

When I brought up node3, with node2 as the donor, the SST time dropped to 18m 33s


Each of these tunings helped the SST speed, though the later adjustments maybe had less of a direct impact.  Depending on your workload, database size, network and CPU available, your mileage may of course vary.  Your tunings should vary accordingly, but also realize you may actually want to limit (and not increase) the speed of state transfers in some cases to avoid other problems. For example, I’ve seen several clusters get unstable during SST and the only explanation for this is the amount of network bandwidth consumed by the state transfer preventing the actual Galera communication between the nodes. Be sure to consider the overall state of production when tuning your SSTs.

The post Optimizing PXC Xtrabackup State Snapshot Transfer appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.

Percona XtraDB Cluster: Quorum and Availability of the cluster

Percona XtraDB Cluster (PXC) has become a popular option to provide high availability for MySQL servers. However many people are still having a hard time understanding what will happen to the cluster when one or several nodes leave the cluster (gracefully or ungracefully). This is what we will clarify in this post.

Nodes leaving gracefully

Let’s assume we have a 3-node cluster and all nodes have an equal weight, which is the default.

What happens if Node1 is gracefully stopped (service mysql stop)? When shutting down, Node1 will instruct the other nodes that it is leaving the cluster. We now have a 2-node cluster and the remaining members have 2/2 = 100% of the votes. The cluster keeps running normally.

What happens now if Node2 is gracefully stopped? Same thing, Node3 knows that Node2 is no longer part of the cluster. Node3 then has 1/1 = 100% of the votes and the 1-node cluster can keep on running.

In these scenarios, there is no need for a quorum vote as the remaining node(s) always know what happened to the nodes that are leaving the cluster.

Nodes becoming unreachable

On the same 3-node cluster with all 3 nodes running, what happens now if Node1 crashes?

This time Node2 and Node3 must run a quorum vote to estimate if it is safe continue: they have 2/3 of the votes, 2/3 is > 50%, so the remaining 2 nodes have quorum and they keep on working normally.

Note that the quorum vote does not happen immediately when Node2 and Node3 are not able to join Node1. It only happens after the ‘suspect timeout’ (evs.suspect_timeout) which is 5 seconds by default. Why? It allows the cluster to be resilient to short network failures which can be quite useful when operating the cluster over a WAN. The tradeoff is that if a node crashes, writes are stalled during the suspect timeout.

Now what happens if Node2 also crashes?

Again a quorum vote must be performed. This time Node3 has only 1/2 of the votes: this is not > 50% of the votes. Node3 doesn’t have quorum, so it stops processing reads and writes.

If you look at the wsrep_cluster_status status variable on the remaining node, it will show NON_PRIMARY. This indicates that the node is not part of the Primary Component.

Why does the remaining node stop processing queries?

This is a question I often hear: after all, MySQL is up and running on Node3 so why is it prevented from running any query? The point is that Node3 has no way to know what happened to Node2:

  • Did it crash? In this case, it is safe for the remaining node to keep on running queries.
  • Or is there a network partition between the two nodes? In this case, it is dangerous to process queries because Node2 might also process other queries that will not be replicated because of the broken network link: the result will be two divergent datasets. This is a split-brain situation, and it is a serious issue as it may be impossible to later merge the two datasets. For instance if the same row has been changed in both nodes, which row has the correct value?

Quorum votes are not held because it’s fun, but only because the remaining nodes have to talk together to see if they can safely proceed. And remember that one of the goals of Galera is to provide strong data consistency, so any time the cluster does not know whether it is safe to proceed, it takes a conservative approach and it stops processing queries.

In such a scenario, the status of Node3 will be set to NON_PRIMARY and a manual intervention is needed to re-bootstrap the cluster from this node by running:

SET GLOBAL wsrep_provider_options='pc.boostrap=YES';

An aside question is: now it is clear why writes should be forbidden in this scenario, but what about reads? Couldn’t we allow them?

Actually this is possible from PXC 5.6.24-25.11 with the wsrep_dirty_reads setting.


Split-brain is one of the worst enemies of a Galera cluster. Quorum votes will take place every time one or several nodes suddenly become unreachable and are meant to protect data consistency. The tradeoff is that it can hurt availability, because in some situations a manual intervention is necessary to instruct the remaining nodes that they can accept executing queries.

The post Percona XtraDB Cluster: Quorum and Availability of the cluster appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.

Speed up GROUP BY queries with subselects in MySQL

We usually try to avoid subselects because sometimes they force the use of a temporary table and limits the use of indexes. But, when is good to use a subselect?

This example was tested over table a (1310723 rows), b, c and d ( 5 rows each) and with MySQL version 5.5 and 5.6.

Let’s suppose we have a query like this:

select,sum(a.count) aSum,avg(a.position) aAVG,b.col1,c.col2,d.col3
a join
b on ( = join
c on (a.cid = join
d on (a.did =
group by,,,

What will MySQL do? First it will take the entire data set – this means that will go through each row scanning the value of  “bid,” “cid” and “did” and then apply the join to each table. At this point it has the complete data set and then it will start to cluster it, executing the sum and the average functions.

Let’s analyze it step by step:

  1. Scan each row of  table a which has 1310720 rows.
  2. Join each row of table a with b, c and d – this means that each of the 1310720 rows will be joined, making the temporary table bigger.
  3. Execute the group by which will scan again the 1310720 rows and creating the result data set.

What can we do to optimize this query? We can’t avoid the group by over the 1.3M rows, but we are able to avoid the join over 1.3M of rows. How? We need all of the information from table a for the “group by” but we don’t need to execute all the joins before clustering them. Let’s rewrite the query:

( select name,sum(count) aSum ,avg(position) aAVG,bid,cid,did
  from a
  group by name,bid,cid,did) a join
b on ( = join
c on (a.cid = join
d on (a.did =

We see from the above query that we are doing the “group by” only over table a, the result data set of that subquery is just 20 rows. But what about the query response time? The first query took 2.3 sec avg and the optimized query took 1.8 sec average, half a second faster.

What about adding a covering index? The index that we can add will be:

alter table a add index (name,bid,cid,did,count,position);

The explain plan of both queries shows that it is using just the index to resolve the query.

Now, the response time of the original query is 1.9 sec which is near the time of the optimized query. However, the response time of the optimized query now is 0.7 sec, nearly 3x faster. The cons of adding this index is that we are indexing the whole table and it shows that the index length is near 80% of the data length.

If the original query had “where” conditions, it will depend over which field. Let’s suppose add c.col2=3:
select,sum(a.count) aSum,avg(a.position) aAVG,b.col1,c.col2,d.col3
a join
b on ( = join
c on (a.cid = join
d on (a.did =
where c.col2=3
group by,,,
Now, in the new query, the subquery will change. Table c and the “where” clause must be added to the subquery:
( select,sum(count) aSum ,avg(position) aAVG,bid,cid,did,c.col2
 from a join
 c on (a.cid =
 where c.col2=3
 group by name,bid,cid,did) a join
b on ( = join
d on (a.did =

But the differences in times are not as big (original query 1.1 sec and new query 0.9). Why? because the original query will have less data to group by. Adding c.col2=3 to the original query, the amount of data to group by is reduced from 1.3M to 262k. Indeed, if you add more “where” conditions on different tables, the dataset to sort will be smaller and the speed-up will decrease.

Conclusion: We usually add the GROUP BY at the end of queries, and that is ok because the syntax forces us to do it. However we can use a subquery to group only the data that we need and then perform the joins over other tables. This could speed up some of our GROUP BY queries.

The post Speed up GROUP BY queries with subselects in MySQL appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.

Update on the InnoDB double-write buffer and EXT4 transactions

In a post, written a few months ago, I found that using EXT4 transactions with the “data=journal” mount option, improves the write performance significantly, by 55%, without putting data at risk. Many people commented on the post mentioning they were not able to reproduce the results and thus, I decided to further investigate in order to find out why my results were different.

So, I ran sysbench benchmarks on a few servers and found when the InnoDB double-write buffer limitations occur and when they don’t. I also made sure some of my colleagues were able to reproduce the results. Basically, in order to reproduce the results you need the following conditions:

  • Spinning disk (no SSD)
  • Enough CPU power
  • A dataset that fits in the InnoDB buffer pool
  • A continuous high write load with many ops waiting for disk

Using the InnoDB double write buffer on an SSD disk somewhat prevents us from seeing the issue, something good performance wise. That comes from the fact that the latency of each write operation is much lower. That makes sense, the double-writer buffer is an area of 128 pages on disk that is used by the write threads. When a write thread needs to write a bunch of dirty pages to disk, it first writes them sequentially to free slots in the double write buffer in a single iop and then, it spends time writing the pages to their actual locations on disk using typically one iop per page. Once done writing, it releases the double-write buffer slots it was holding and another thread can do its work. The presence of a raid controller with a write cache certainly helps, at least until the write cache is full. Thus, since I didn’t tested with a raid controller, I suspect a raid controller write cache will delay the apparition of the symptoms but if the write load is sustained over a long period of time, the issue with the InnoDB double write buffer will appear.

So, to recapitulate, on a spinning disk, a write thread needs to hold a lock on some of the double-write buffer slots for at least a few milliseconds per page it needs to write while on a SSD disk, the slots are released very quickly because of the low latency of the SSD storage. To actually stress the InnoDB double-write buffer on a SSD disk, one must push much more writes.

That leads us to the second point, the amount of CPU resources available. At first, one of my colleague tried to reproduce the results on a small EC2 instance and failed. It appeared that by default, the sysbench oltp.lua script is doing quite a lot of reads and those reads saturate the CPU, throttling the writes. By lowering the amount of reads in the script, he was then able to reproduce the results.

For my benchmarks, I used the following command:

sysbench --num-threads=16 --mysql-socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock
--mysql-database=sbtest --mysql-user=root
--test=/usr/share/doc/sysbench/tests/db/oltp.lua --oltp-table-size=50000000
--oltp-test-mode=complex --mysql-engine=innodb --db-driver=mysql
--report-interval=60 --max-requests=0 --max-time=3600 run

Both servers used were metal boxes with 12 physical cores (24 HT). With less CPU resources, I suggest adding the following parameters:


So that the CPU is not wasted on reads and enough writes are generated. Remember we are not doing a generic benchmarks, we are just stressing the InnoDB double-write buffer.

In order to make sure something else isn’t involved, I verified the following:

  • Server independence, tried on 2 physical servers and one EC2 instance, Centos 6 and Ubuntu 14.04
  • MySQL provided, tried on MySQL community and Percona Server
  • MySQL version, tried on 5.5.37 and 5.6.23 (Percona Server)
  • Varied the InnoDB log file size from 32MB to 512MB
  • The impacts of the number of InnoDB write threads (1,2,4,8,16,32)
  • The use of Linux native asynchronous iop
  • Spinning and SSD storage

So, with all those verifications done, I can maintain that if you are using a server with spinning disks and a high write load, using EXT4 transactions instead of the InnoDB double write buffer yields to an increase in throughput of more than 50%. In an upcoming post, I’ll show how the performance stability is affected by the InnoDB double-write buffer under a high write load.

Appendix: the relevant part of the my.cnf

innodb_buffer_pool_size = 12G
innodb_write_io_threads = 8 # or else in {1,2,4,8,16,32}
innodb_read_io_threads = 8
innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 0 # must be 0 or 2 to really stress the double write buffer
innodb_log_file_size = 512M # or 32M, 64M
innodb_log_files_in_group = 2
innodb_flush_method=O_DIRECT # or O_DSYNC
innodb_buffer_pool_restore_at_startup=300 # On 5.5.x, important to warm up the buffer pool
#innodb_buffer_pool_load_at_startup=ON # on 5.6, important to warm up the buffer pool
#innodb_buffer_pool_dump_at_shutdown=ON # on 5.6, important to warm up the buffer pool,
skip-innodb_doublewrite # or commented out
innodb_flush_neighbor_pages=none # or area for spinning

The post Update on the InnoDB double-write buffer and EXT4 transactions appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.

Getting EXPLAIN information from already running queries in MySQL 5.7

When a new version of MySQL is about to be released we read a lot of blog posts about the performance and scalability improvements. That’s good but sometimes we miss some small features that can help us a lot in our day-to-day tasks. One good example is the blog post that Aurimas wrote about a new small feature in MySQL 5.6 that I didn’t know about until I read it: the Automatic InnoDB transaction log file size change. How cool is that?

I plan to write a series of blog posts that will show some of those small new features in MySQL 5.7 that are going to be really useful. I’m going to start with EXPLAIN FOR CONNECTION.

This feature allows us to run an EXPLAIN for an already running statement. Let’s say that you find a query that has been running for a long time and you want to check why that could be happening. In 5.7 you can just ask MySQL to EXPLAIN the query that a particular connection is running and get the execution path. You can use it if the query is a SELECT, DELETE, INSERT, REPLACE or UPDATE. Won’t work if the query is a prepared statement though.

Let me show you an example of how it works.

We have a long running join.

mysql [localhost] {msandbox} ((none)) > show processlist G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
     Id: 9
   User: msandbox
   Host: localhost
     db: employees
Command: Query
   Time: 49
  State: Sending data
   Info: select count(*) from employees, salaries where employees.emp_no = salaries.emp_no

Let’s see the execution plan for the query:

mysql [localhost] {msandbox} ((none)) > explain for connection 9 G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
           id: 1
  select_type: SIMPLE
        table: employees
   partitions: NULL
         type: ALL
possible_keys: NULL
          key: NULL
      key_len: NULL
          ref: NULL
         rows: 299540
     filtered: 100.00
        Extra: NULL
*************************** 2. row ***************************
           id: 1
  select_type: SIMPLE
        table: salaries
   partitions: NULL
         type: ALL
possible_keys: NULL
          key: NULL
      key_len: NULL
          ref: NULL
         rows: 2803840
     filtered: 100.00
        Extra: Using where; Using join buffer (Block Nested Loop)

The join between those tables is not using any index at all so there is some room for improvement here :)


You can use this feature to see why a query is running for too long and based on the info decide how to fix it and how to proceed. This is going to be a very useful feature for DBAs who want to diagnose performance problems and slow queries.

The post Getting EXPLAIN information from already running queries in MySQL 5.7 appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.

Percona XtraDB Cluster (PXC): How many nodes do you need?

A question I often hear when customers want to set up a production PXC cluster is: “How many nodes should we use?”

Three nodes is the most common deployment, but when are more nodes needed? They also ask: “Do we always need to use an even number of nodes?”

This is what we’ll clarify in this post.

This is all about quorum

I explained in a previous post that a quorum vote is held each time one node becomes unreachable. With this vote, the remaining nodes will estimate whether it is safe to keep on serving queries. If quorum is not reached, all remaining nodes will set themselves in a state where they cannot process any query (even reads).

To get the right size for you cluster, the only question you should answer is: how many nodes can simultaneously fail while leaving the cluster operational?

  • If the answer is 1 node, then you need 3 nodes: when 1 node fails, the two remaining nodes have quorum.
  • If the answer is 2 nodes, then you need 5 nodes.
  • If the answer is 3 nodes, then you need 7 nodes.
  • And so on and so forth.

Remember that group communication is not free, so the more nodes in the cluster, the more expensive group communication will be. That’s why it would be a bad idea to have a cluster with 15 nodes for instance. In general we recommend that you talk to us if you think you need more than 10 nodes.

What about an even number of nodes?

The recommendation above always specifies odd number of nodes, so is there anything bad with an even number of nodes? Let’s take a 4-node cluster and see what happens if nodes fail:

  • If 1 node fails, 3 nodes are remaining: they have quorum.
  • If 2 nodes fail, 2 nodes are remaining: they no longer have quorum (remember 50% is NOT quorum).

Conclusion: availability of a 4-node cluster is no better than the availability of a 3-node cluster, so why bother with a 4th node?

The next question is: is a 4-node cluster less available than a 3-node cluster? Many people think so, specifically after reading this sentence from the manual:

Clusters that have an even number of nodes risk split-brain conditions.

Many people read this as “as soon as one node fails, this is a split-brain condition and the whole cluster stop working”. This is not correct! In a 4-node cluster, you can lose 1 node without any problem, exactly like in a 3-node cluster. This is not better but not worse.

By the way the manual is not wrong! The sentence makes sense with its context.

There could actually reasons why you might want to have an even number of nodes, but we will discuss that topic in the next section.

Quorum with multiple data centers

To provide more availability, spreading nodes in several datacenters is a common practice: if power fails in one DC, nodes are available elsewhere. The typical implementation is 3 nodes in 2 DCs:


Notice that while this setup can handle any single node failure, it can’t handle all single DC failures: if we lose DC1, 2 nodes leave the cluster and the remaining node has not quorum. You can try with 4, 5 or any number of nodes and it will be easy to convince yourself that in all cases, losing one DC can make the whole cluster stop operating.

If you want to be resilient to a single DC failure, you must have 3 DCs, for instance like this:


Other considerations

Sometimes other factors will make you choose a higher number of nodes. For instance, look at these requirements:

  • All traffic is directed to a single node.
  • The application should be able to fail over to another node in the same datacenter if possible.
  • The cluster must keep operating even if one datacenter fails.

The following architecture is an option (and yes, it has an even number of nodes!):



Regarding availability, it is easy to estimate the number of nodes you need for your PXC cluster. But node failures are not the only aspect to consider: Resilience to a datacenter failure can, for instance, influence the number of nodes you will be using.

The post Percona XtraDB Cluster (PXC): How many nodes do you need? appeared first on MySQL Performance Blog.