Just swinging from your "low level control" statement...maybe
that's something they want too...
Some of the stuff that he brags about in the article sounds impressive,
but it could be that it's only because I'm still trying to figure
out how to spell multi-master.
Cheers,
- Ole
Chris Custine wrote:
I'm no expert on either Terracotta or Multi-master replication, but I
think that one of the problems with these clustering or caching
mechanisms is that ultimately you have don't have enough low level
control of the messaging between nodes which I think is extremely
important in developing multi-master.... Also, I believe that
Terracotta requires a central hub for distributing data so therefore
doesn't even support multimaster (this was the case last year at least,
not sure if it has changed).
Chris
On 5/25/07, *Ole Ersoy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=TerracottaScalabilityStory
I've been peeking at this, and seems like
Terracotta might have a stuff in common with ADS.
I'm at 50K feet right now, but it would be interesting
to see what API overlap there is and if there is overlap,
which API performs better.
The reason I think there's overlap is because Terracotta is
a server that efficiently synchronizes data between multiple
JVMs. So I think there might be something to learn from it's
network communication layer, especially with respect to synchronization
/ server replication. I'm totally shooting from the hip though.
Cheers,
- Ole
