I will not discuss if the shadow is (still) a valid concept or not (regarding safety), but since FB doesn't offer native replication, cluster, etc, shadow is the only "anti-failure" thing that we can say Firebird offers natively (even when we know that the "safety" level is very limited).
So, even if the "safety" effect is just psychologic, I think it is a good thing to keep the shadow feature until we have a better native alternative to show to people. IOW, it is a marketing decision too. []s Carlos http://www.firebirdnews.org FireBase - http://www.FireBase.com.br >> 09.05.2011 18:48, Leyne, Sean wrote: >> >> I disagree. Shadow is the only method for synchronous replication >> >> in Firebird now. >> > >> > Synchronous replication on a single server is not replication. >> >> Don't forget about NFS and iSCSI(?). LS> Shadow was designed as an early software RAID solution, designed LS> to support HDD failure scenarios. LS> iSCSI is remote file storage protocols. There is no need for the LS> primary database to have Shadow enabled. LS> With NFS you could have multiple classic servers sharing database LS> access, what is the role of Shadow in that case? LS> In either case, you can have a single database file hosted by the LS> remote storage, with that storage having appropriate HDD RAID LS> solution and still support a near-line failover of the database LS> server without the need for Shadow. LS> Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
