[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > One reason that "just a database" won't do is a simple matter of being honest > to our proposal. That is, somebody here told 'em we'd do it, and now we've > gotta do it.
No backing out then :-) > The reason it went into the proposal is: > 1: Clustered databases sound "cool" and "sexy" (Yes, that's a real reason :) > 2: Unplanned failures (Very Rare): It would be nice if the motherboard > fried on one machine, and we could fairly quickly (ideally, seamlessly) get > the other up and running. > 3: Planned outages (i.e., maintenance -- Rare): It would also be nice to > take a machine out of the cluster to, say, add memory. As usual, the system operating normally isn't half as interesting as the system failing :-) Could you describe acceptable and unacceptable consequences of failures? For instance, if one database goes down, is it acceptable to have: - a few seconds dataloss? - a few seconds before the database switches over? - a requirement for manual switchover? If both databases go down (power failure in the facility), is it acceptable to have: - a few seconds dataloss? - a manual restart sequence? - a restore from last backup situation? Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:202928 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
