> 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 database > and also keep transaction logs. In case of a failure you put the latest > 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 Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users