Active-active MySQL replication often sounds like the perfect solution: high availability, better performance, and no single point of failure. It’s easy to see why teams are drawn to it.
But in practice, active-active is one of those ideas that looks much simpler on a slide deck than it is in real systems. In this post, we’ll break down what active-active really means, why teams reach for it, and where it most often causes trouble.
What “Active-Active” MySQL Really Means
In an active-active (sometimes called multi-primary or formerly multi-master) setup, more than one MySQL server can accept writes at the same time. Each node acts as both a source of data and a replica of the others.
That’s very different from the more common active-passive model, where:
- One primary handles all writes.
- One or more replicas handle reads.
- A replica is promoted to primary only during failover.
Active-passive keeps the rules simple: there’s always a single place where changes originate. Active-active removes that rule — and that’s where things get interesting.
Why Teams are Attracted to Active-Active
On the surface, active-active promises several appealing benefits.
Higher Write Availability
If one writer goes down, another can immediately take over. There’s no promotion step and no waiting for a replica to become writable. In theory, the system is always ready to accept writes.
Lower Latency for Global Users
For globally distributed applications, active-active seems ideal. Users in Europe can write to a nearby database, users in the US can do the same, and everything syncs in the background.
Operational Flexibility
Some maintenance tasks can be handled by shifting traffic instead of changing database roles. In systems designed for multi-primary operation, failures may be handled transparently without application involvement.
These benefits are real — when the underlying technology and operational model are designed for them.
The Hard Part: Conflicts, Consistency, and Complexity
The biggest challenge with active-active isn’t availability. It’s conflicting writes.
Once more than one node can accept changes, you have to answer a tough question:
What happens when two nodes update the same data at roughly the same time?
This is where many active-active designs start to break down.
Conflicting Updates
In classic asynchronous multi-primary setups, there’s usually no built-in way to resolve conflicts safely. Two servers can accept different updates, replicate them in different orders, and end up disagreeing about the final state.
Sometimes the “last write wins.” Sometimes replication stops. Sometimes the data quietly diverges. At Continuent, we opted by default for data integrity first - replication stops and an error is brought to the database administrator.
Split-Brain Scenarios
If the network between regions goes down, each side may continue accepting writes independently. When connectivity is restored, reconciling two different histories can be difficult — or impossible without data loss.
Operational Complexity
Backups, restores, and recovery are harder when there’s no single authoritative source. Operational runbooks grow longer, and the number of failure scenarios you need to test increases dramatically.
Hard-to-Test Failure Modes
Many of the most dangerous problems only appear under partial outages, network instability, or heavy load. They often don’t show up in staging — they show up in production.
Some MySQL technologies address parts of this problem with built-in conflict detection, but they also introduce new rules and constraints that teams must fully understand.
The Myth of “Easy Write Scaling”
Another common reason teams consider active-active is the idea that it will magically double write capacity.
In reality:
- Every node still has to apply everyone else’s writes.
- Hot rows and indexes remain bottlenecks.
- Replication lag often increases under load.
Active-active can temporarily accept more writes, but that doesn’t mean the system can process them efficiently or safely.
True horizontal write scaling usually requires sharding or distributed storage engines, not simply adding more writable MySQL nodes.
Where Active-Active Actually Works Well
Despite the risks, active-active can be a good fit in certain scenarios.
Naturally Separated Data
If each region or node mostly works on its own slice of data — for example, tenant-based or regional partitioning — conflicts are rare by design.
Purpose-Built Multi-Primary Systems
Technologies that explicitly support multi-primary operation define how conflicts are detected and resolved, which reduces guesswork for operators.
Highly Mature Teams
Teams with strong observability, thorough testing, clear runbooks, and experience handling distributed systems can manage the complexity.
In these environments, active-active is often used for availability and regional flexibility, not raw write throughput.
Why Active-Passive is Still the Default for Most Teams
For many applications, a single writer with replicas is still the safest and most practical approach.
Easier Consistency
With one primary, all writes follow a single order. Replicas simply apply that stream, and conflict handling mostly disappears.
Simpler Operations
Backups, restores, schema changes, and capacity planning are all easier when there’s a clear source of truth.
Better Fit for Most Applications
Most OLTP applications are designed with the assumption that there’s one authoritative writer. Changing that assumption has wide-ranging consequences.
Many teams achieve excellent availability by combining active-passive replication, automated failover, and read scaling — without ever introducing multi-primary complexity.
A Practical Way to Decide
Before choosing active-active, ask yourself:
- Can your application tolerate conflicting writes?
- Is your data naturally partitioned?
- Are you prepared for network partitions and partial failures?
- Are you solving a latency problem, an availability problem, or a write-capacity problem?
If the answers are unclear, active-active may introduce more risk than value.
For most teams, a sensible progression looks like this:
- Start with active-passive.
- Invest in automation, monitoring, and testing.
- Introduce sharding or specialized systems if write capacity becomes a real limit.
- Treat active-active as a specialized tool, not a default setting.
Active-active MySQL replication can be powerful — but only when used with clear intent, strong boundaries, and a realistic understanding of the trade-offs.
Comments
Add new comment