> On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 08:59 -0600, Andreas Jung wrote:
> >
> > --On 26. Februar 2006 01:52:29 +1100 Alen Stanisic
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > For some reason it doesn't feel completely safe just relying on
> Data.fs.
> >
> > That means what? Why shouln't it be safe...please come up with some
> > reasonable arguments..
> >
> > -aj
> >
> I did mention that it could be because most rdb systems have a
> and also keep transaction logs.  In case of a failure you put the
> backup of the db and transaction logs together and you could rebuild
> your db to the point just before the failure.  If you only had a daily
> back up of your db you could potentially lose a full day of
> transactions.
One could also mention failover: if one computer with Data.fs goes down,
you're down, period; whereas many RDBMSes support keeping slave copies
of the database, which are then available.

Also, there are ACID transactions (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID) in a good RDBMS. I don't know how
zodb ensures consistency if there are multiple concurrent users, and can
we rollback gracefully?

Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to