Contents

Galera ClusterEdit

Galera Cluster is a commercially important and widely deployed solution for high-availability databases built on top of MySQL-compatible systems. It provides a multi-master, synchronous replication cluster that allows writes to be performed on any node while maintaining strong consistency across the cluster. The technology underpinning Galera Cluster has been adopted and adapted by major open-source ecosystems, notably MariaDB and Percona offerings, and it remains a cornerstone for teams aiming to keep their data available and consistent in the face of hardware failures or network interruptions.

Galera Cluster is designed for environments where downtime is costly and data integrity is non-negotiable. By enabling writes on any node and synchronously propagating the effects of those writes to other nodes, it reduces the risk of data divergence after a failure. This design makes it popular for web-scale applications, e-commerce backends, and other workloads that require both high availability and predictable read performance. The approach is closely tied to the wsrep API, which provides a framework for replication that is not tied to a single vendor’s implementation. See wsrep for the underlying protocol and interfaces that enable Galera’s replication model.

Technical foundations

Architecture and components

  • Multi-master topology: All nodes act as writable masters, which simplifies application logic that historically relied on single-writer designs. It also enables reads to be served locally from any node, potentially reducing latency for user-facing operations.
  • wsrep provider: The replication workflow is driven by the wsrep_provider library, which coordinates transaction replication and application across nodes.
  • Galera Arbitrator (garbd): In larger or geographically distributed deployments, a lightweight arbitrator can participate in quorum decisions without storing data, helping to maintain high availability without adding storage overhead.
  • Storage engine compatibility: Galera works most effectively with InnoDB-style engines, commonly used through InnoDB or related forks like MariaDB's XtraDB lineage, and relies on the transactional guarantees these engines provide.

Replication model

  • Write-set replication: Rather than sending individual SQL statements, Galera transmits a set of changes (the write-set) that fully describes the transaction’s effects. This helps enforce consistency across all nodes.
  • Certification-based replication: Transactions are certified across the cluster before being committed, preventing conflicting transactions from winning and thereby preserving ACID-like properties in a multi-master setting.
  • Synchronous semantics: A transaction is considered committed only after the cluster has certified and applied its effects on a quorum of nodes, which reduces the chance of divergence but introduces replication latency that grows with the cluster size and network distance.

Topologies, bootstrapping, and transfers

  • Quorum and node counts: While a cluster can tolerate some failures, the number of nodes and their geographic distribution influence availability. An odd number of nodes is commonly recommended to preserve quorum in partitions.
  • State transfers: When new nodes join or recover, Galera uses a State Snapshot Transfer (State Snapshot Transfer) to bootstrap data. Incremental state transfer (State Snapshot Transfer) can be used to catch up nodes more efficiently when only limited changes occurred.
  • Join and bootstrap process: Proper bootstrap procedures ensure the cluster starts with a consistent state, avoiding split-brain scenarios and deadlock in recovery.

Use cases and operating considerations

  • High availability with write-on-any-node: Organizations seeking continuous operation during failures often adopt Galera to minimize downtime, ensuring that a failure on one node does not interrupt service.
  • Read scaling and locality: Since reads can be served from any node, Galera clusters can reduce read latency for geographically distributed users when topology and network paths are correctly configured.
  • Geographic distribution vs latency: The synchronous nature of Galera means latency between nodes directly impacts write throughput and user-perceived write latency. For globally distributed deployments, latency-aware topology design and network quality become critical considerations.
  • Deployment options: Galera Cluster can be deployed in traditional on-premises data centers, hosted environments, or containerized ecosystems. Many teams also use a Galera Arbitrator to help maintain quorum without increasing data storage footprint.

Performance, management, and ecosystem

  • Trade-offs with write performance: The need to replicate and certify every write across the cluster imposes overhead. Write-heavy workloads or long-distance clusters may observe higher latency compared with asynchronous replication, especially during network hiccups.
  • Read performance: Reads on local nodes can be fast, and load distribution across nodes can improve overall throughput for mixed workloads when the cluster is sized appropriately.
  • Ecosystem integration: The clustering model has strong support in MariaDB ecosystems and in Percona distributions, contributing to robust tooling around deployment, backup, and monitoring.
  • Operations and maintenance: As with any distributed system, careful tuning of network infrastructure, node count, and failover policies is essential. Administrators should plan for regular maintenance windows to manage software upgrades, backups, and SST/IST cycles.

Controversies and debates

  • Open-source vs enterprise strategies: Galera’s ecosystem has seen debates over how best to balance community-driven development with enterprise support, licensing, and feature parity. Advocates of openness emphasize broad collaboration and transparency, while others weigh the stability and guarantee of enterprise-grade support.
  • Complexity vs reliability: Some practitioners critique multi-master, synchronous replication as inherently more complex than simpler primary-secondary setups, arguing that the added complexity and coordination cost must be justified by the reliability gains. Proponents counter that the reliability and continuity benefits of automatic failover and consistent writes can outweigh the added complexity in the right contexts.
  • Alternatives and evolution: In the broader landscape of distributed databases and NewSQL, there is ongoing discussion about when to use a Galera-style cluster versus alternative architectures, such as sharded setups, distributed SQL engines, or cloud-native solutions with managed replication guarantees. Critics of any single-technology approach emphasize that different workloads, latency budgets, and operational capabilities favor different designs.
  • Data locality and sovereignty: For organizations with strict data locality requirements, the choice of cluster topology and deployment region raises debates about where data is stored and how replication traffic is routed. These concerns intersect with broader regulatory and policy considerations, particularly for cross-border deployments.

See also