On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:14 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > So not to come off all BOFH-ish, but it seems like there needs to be > give and take here.
Ah, so you're Simon! ;) > From your post: > $entity wants no downtime. > $DB provides several replication strategies that work to varying > degrees to get one closer to no downtime. > $entity doesn't want to design a schema that works well the proven $DB > replication strategies. > $entity seeks magic silver bullet to provide the above. > > While things like DRBD might be reasonable, if it's something they > care enough about to really want no downtime, why are they not willing > to modify their schema to use $DB-approved solutions for maintaining > availability? That'd be how I'd do it as well, and in the future we'll be guiding them into that type of thought process. For now we're keeping them happy, and pondering how we'll respond to similar requests in the future. This is part of the "migrating to the cloud" thing - enterprises have a "traditional" workload that they want to cloudify (sorry). They can either re-architect and then move the new pieces to a cloud environment, or move and then re-architect. In this case it's the latter, partially due to internal IT telling the division they were taking up too much compute space. And I suspect at the IaaS level, you'll see more of the "move and then re-architect" model, which is partially why I brought this up on the users list. -j
