home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.databases
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!scd.hp.com!cupnews0.cup.hp.com!dhepner
- From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
- Subject: Re: Hot Standby DBMS's
- Sender: news@cupnews0.cup.hp.com
- Message-ID: <BuBnrp.DKB@cup.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:40:37 GMT
- References: <1992Sep9.141443.19295@ugle.unit.no>
- Organization: Hewlett-Packard
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4
- Lines: 22
-
- From: oytor@teleserve.no (Oystein Torbjornsen)
-
- >By
- >introducing an open standard the customer can use DBMS' from different vendors
- >for primary and hot standby.
-
- >The two DBMS' is likely to be
- >implemented by different people using different languages and different
- >mechnisms and therefore have independent failure modes.
-
- This is an intriguing idea, for reasons well stated by Oystein. The
- problem is that to do this requires that the content of those
- "standby records" needs to be standardized. Such standardization
- seems unlikely at this time.
-
- Beyond that, what would we make of databases which came to be
- out-of-sync? Which one is right, which wrong? Should we add
- a third, and take a vote? What if all three disagree?
-
- A fun thing to think about, though.
-
- Dan Hepner
-