home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20 / NN_1992_20.iso / spool / comp / database / 6638 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-09-09  |  1.2 KB  |  35 lines

  1. Newsgroups: comp.databases
  2. 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
  3. From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
  4. Subject: Re: Hot Standby DBMS's
  5. Sender: news@cupnews0.cup.hp.com
  6. Message-ID: <BuBnrp.DKB@cup.hp.com>
  7. Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:40:37 GMT
  8. References: <1992Sep9.141443.19295@ugle.unit.no>
  9. Organization: Hewlett-Packard
  10. X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4
  11. Lines: 22
  12.  
  13. From: oytor@teleserve.no (Oystein Torbjornsen)
  14.  
  15. >By
  16. >introducing an open standard the customer can use DBMS' from different vendors
  17. >for primary and hot standby.
  18.  
  19. >The two DBMS' is likely to be
  20. >implemented by different people using different languages and different
  21. >mechnisms and therefore have independent failure modes.
  22.  
  23. This is an intriguing idea, for reasons well stated by Oystein. The 
  24. problem is that to do this requires that the content of those
  25. "standby records" needs to be standardized.  Such standardization
  26. seems unlikely at this time.
  27.  
  28. Beyond that, what would we make of databases which came to be
  29. out-of-sync?  Which one is right, which wrong?  Should we add
  30. a third, and take a vote?  What if all three disagree?
  31.  
  32. A fun thing to think about, though.
  33.  
  34. Dan Hepner
  35.