Dimitry, > 25.12.2011 1:00, Leyne, Sean wrote: > > A cluster won't help, since all databases would see the same number of > transactions, the number of which is the problem. > > No, if several transactions during transfer between nodes are merged into > one. > Besides, there is no need for all nodes to start from the same counter > value.
That type of solution is not what I would define as a cluster. You are referring to a replication based solution, where the data changes are shipped to separate copies of the database. I don't see how would data integrity could be managed across the nodes, nor how update collisions (2 nodes updating the same row) be detected. At least when it comes to Windows based clusters, all the storage is shared amongst all nodes so that they share a single view of the data, with processes that distribute and monitor the work across the nodes. That picture would be best represented by multiple nodes each running a FB classic engine with a distributed lock manager, connected to a common storage device. Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
