Patrick Gerken wrote:
You run your live Data.fs off a SAN?
That usually makes for interesting performance problems in the best case!
Well, yes, that is/was the idea when suddenly HA requests popped up.
You might be right,
Painful experience has taught me that I am ;-)
need to access many
On 9/25/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Gerken wrote:
system with ZEO for an ERP5 deployment. In my case I don't need to
care for data replication, all is stored on a SAN considered HA by the
customer already.
You run your live Data.fs off a SAN?
That usually makes for
Patrick Gerken wrote:
system with ZEO for an ERP5 deployment. In my case I don't need to
care for data replication, all is stored on a SAN considered HA by the
customer already.
You run your live Data.fs off a SAN?
That usually makes for interesting performance problems in the best case!
So
On 9/22/06, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Patrick Gerken wrote:
Hello,
its funny, like Garth in may this year I am looking into making a HA
system with ZEO for an ERP5 deployment. In my case I don't need to
care for data replication, all is stored on a SAN considered HA by
On Sep 22, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
...
One of the last things I remember is that indexes can not be rebuilt
partially but are rebuilt completely.
If the existing index is valid, then only new data are read if it
isn't current.
I think this is what Patrick was referring
Patrick Gerken wrote at 2006-9-22 10:17 +0200:
...
Even the first checkin of the filestorage makes a
self.read_index(...start = start...)
which updates the index from the oldest tid known to the index.
I can only imagine that the index gets invalidated if the
self._check_sanity() returns 0 thus
Hi,
Patrick Gerken wrote:
Hello,
its funny, like Garth in may this year I am looking into making a HA
system with ZEO for an ERP5 deployment. In my case I don't need to
care for data replication, all is stored on a SAN considered HA by the
customer already.
So my data.fs and index and
