On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote: > an inferior product anyway. What I want to point out is that some people > want an alternative Oracle's Real Application Cluster. They want load > balancing and hot failover. Even data centers asking for replication did > not want to have an async approach in the past.
I think Jan has already outlined his more-distant-future idea, but I'd also like to know whether the people who are asking for a replacement for RAC are willing to invest in it? You could buy some _awfully_ good development time for even a year's worth of licensing for RAC. I get the impression from the Postgres-R list that their biggest obstacle is development resources. <rant> People often like to say they need hot-fail-capable, five nines, 24/7/365 systems. For most applications, I just do not believe that, and the truth is that the cost of getting from three nines to four (never mind five) is so great that people cheat: one paragraph has the "five nines" clause, and the next paragraph talks about scheduled downtime. In a real "five nines" system (the phone company, say, or the air traffic control system), the time for scheduled downtime is just the cumulative possible outage at any node when it is being switched with its replacement. Five minutes a year is a pretty high bar to jump, and most people long ago concluded that you don't actually need it for most applications. </rant> A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org