Which three are key advantages of standard MySQL replication?

Question

Options

• AA. supports native automatic failover
• BB. enables automatic resync of databases when discrepancies are detected
• CC. provides arbitrary geographic redundancy with minimal overhead to master
• DD. synchronously guarantees identical slave copy
• EE. is easy to configure and has low performance overhead
• FF. can easily add slaves for read scaling

• B
  91% (32)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  6% (2)

Explanation

Standard MySQL replication is valued for being straightforward to set up with minimal impact on the master (E), allowing read traffic to be offloaded to multiple slave nodes simply by pointing them at the master (F), and offering the ability to resync replicas when data discrepancies are detected (B) - making it a practical, scalable solution for many workloads.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is wrong because standard replication is asynchronous and has no built-in automatic failover; you need external tools like MHA or Orchestrator for that.
• C is wrong because geographic replication introduces latency and network overhead - the "minimal overhead" claim doesn't hold across long distances.
• D is wrong because standard MySQL replication is asynchronous by default, meaning slaves can lag behind the master; there is no synchronous guarantee (that requires Group Replication or Galera Cluster).

Memory tip: Think "BEF the exam" - Backup resync, Easy to configure, Fast read scaling. These three represent the practical, operational benefits of standard replication, while the wrong answers describe features that require more advanced or external solutions (synchronous replication, automatic failover).

No community discussion yet for this question.