Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Replication: Weighing the Trade-offs
When configuring replication, businesses must choose between asynchronous and synchronous replication. and businesses must carefully evaluate their performance and availability requirements when choosing between asynchronous and synchronous replication.
Asynchronous replication allows the morocco rcs data primary server to continue processing transactions without waiting for the replica to confirm the changes. However, this comes at the cost of potential data loss in a failure, as the replica may not be fully up to date. Then again, this possible data loss when using asynchronous replication can be mitigated with intelligent replication and clustering capabilities.
Synchronous replication, on the other hand, requires changes to both the primary and replica before the transaction is considered complete. While this ensures data consistency and zero loss, it can introduce latency, particularly in high-transaction environments. Synchronous replication is usually only useful when MySQL is clustered locally. For disaster recovery geographic scaling purposes, the increased replication latency of synchronous replication becomes a major hindrance and causes significant database latency. Synchronous replication is only used in clustered MySQL since the additional overhead of synchronous replication does not provide much value when used for simple MySQL point-to-point replication.