I've never seen "corrupted" replication on MySQL, but I've only ever
used it on rather lite sites.

The replication is much lighter on the system though, as it's
transaction log based.

Also setting up a new slave is MUCH faster, but you need to make the
initial copy with a downed server.

Dan

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 10:28, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Dan Hrabarchuk wrote:
> 
> >If you update a slave MySQL server, the replication goes out of sync and
> >you end up with a "split brain" situation.
> >  
> >
> That's kind of the way eRServer used to be; nothing would prevent you 
> from updating data on a slave server there, either.
> 
> That's not a case I'd be particularly worried about, either; I figure 
> that if I shoot myself in the foot in that way, there's surely going to 
> be at least a bit of bleeding.
> 
> I'm WAY more concerned about the case where updates on a "master" node 
> are corrupted on their way to the slave nodes.