Re: Least intrusive way to move primary data

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Andrew W. Gibbs <awgibbs(at)awgibbs(dot)com>wrote:

> Going with your first option, a master->slave replication, has the
> added benefit that you build the expertise for doing Continuous Point
> In Time Recovery, and after you do this storage system migration you
> can use that knowledge to put in a place a permanent standby server.
> Yes, it is a bit of work, but you'd kill two birds with one stone, and
> these are worthwhile birds. If you've got a busy server, and you want
> to do regular back-ups, and you don't have a much more
> expensive/sophisticated solution at your behest (or you want to
> support load balancing of reads in the future), this is probably
> something you want to do anyway.

Thanks Andrew, actually I have a streaming slave running for backups at the
moment. It's just not as powerful as the primary. It would probably
actually be an option to upgrade it and do the failover as well.