On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term 
> 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a 
> well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to 
> avoid that term.
> IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a synchronous replication for a 
> 'Shared Disk Fail Over'. It's not replication, because there's no replica.

Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on
everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use
terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably.
Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability
solution. A few are more concerned with scalability. Sometimes it's a
combination of both. That's why I think it's good for the chapter to
deal with both aspects of this.
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to