While these are all great products and can provide highly available layers on top of MySQL, only MySQL cluster satisfies rtdsc's requirements, and I have my doubts about its behavior around clocks. In general, the MySQL HA space prefers CP to AP.

MySQL Cluster is CP within a cluster. A circularly replicated pair of MySQL Clusters can be considered AP, with limited support for conflict resolution (if I understand correctly, it gets ugly when clocks come into play). http://messagepassing.blogspot.com/2012/03/cap-theorem-and-m...

Percona is CP. They claim to be CA by sacrificing partition tolerance: in other words, the system is not available when partitioned. http://www.percona.com/doc/percona-xtradb-cluster/intro.html

Clustrix is definitely CP, not AP. If you lose quorum, everything stops. They do an excellent job of being a distributed CP system, though, from what I can tell. http://sergei.clustrix.com/2011/02/mongodb-vs-clustrix-compa...

Continuent Tungsten Replicator has a master-master mode, which is CP. http://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/0405/continuen...

Thank you, Aaaron. That's what I was looking for.

It seems there is some load balancing / cluster node membership layer on top of MySQL which is used for storage.

But I guess, if they are integrated into a single packaged product, then it doesn't matter much (well SQL syntax would have MySQL peculiarities in it).

But if you look at the number of lines on top of MySQL (since MySQL was argued to be the understood and established by the grandparent poster) that all these solutions add, would be greater than 1000.