Hi,
I have a situation where I need to keep data on several PCs on a LAN in
sync. Any PC may update the data, with suitable locking, which must be
pushed out to all the others. It must be possible for a PC to go down
and be brought back on line again without impacting the others. The
amount
2009/9/16 Chris Simmonds ch...@2net.co.uk:
Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:13:45PM +0100, Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hi and thanks to everyone who replied. I'm busy researching some
possibilities at the moment. However, just to clarify, the issue is high
availability among the 50 or
Hi Chris,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:15:18PM +0100, Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hi,
I have a situation where I need to keep data on several PCs on a LAN in
sync.
As others have said, before going any further with this, I would be
making sure tat there is absolutely no way that the requirements
Adrian Bridgett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 17:15:18 +0100 (+0100), Chris Simmonds wrote:
One option I have considered is using, say, MySQL with one master node
replicating to all the others and some mechanism to elect a new master
if the original went down. But, that sounds messy. There
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:13:45PM +0100, Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hi and thanks to everyone who replied. I'm busy researching some
possibilities at the moment. However, just to clarify, the issue is high
availability among the 50 or so nodes so that any node can go down and
come back up again
sounds like a job for couchdb to me.
masterless replication, you do need to figure out some kind of topology
though, you don't want everything replicating with everything as that
would be a huge number of connections. Maybe some kind of broadcast
system could be used to have nodes advertising
Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:13:45PM +0100, Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hi and thanks to everyone who replied. I'm busy researching some
possibilities at the moment. However, just to clarify, the issue is high
availability among the 50 or so nodes so that any node can go down and
On Wednesday 16 September 2009 16:58:54 Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:13:45PM +0100, Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hi and thanks to everyone who replied. I'm busy researching some
possibilities at the moment. However, just to clarify, the issue is high
Hi,
I have a situation where I need to keep data on several PCs on a LAN in
sync. Any PC may update the data, with suitable locking, which must be
pushed out to all the others. It must be possible for a PC to go down
and be brought back on line again without impacting the others. The
amount
-Original Message-
From: hampshire-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk
[mailto:hampshire-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Chris
Simmonds
Sent: 15 September 2009 17:15
To: hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: [Hampshire] High availability database
Hi,
I have a situation where I need to keep data
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Chris Simmonds ch...@2net.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
I have a situation where I need to keep data on several PCs on a LAN in
sync. Any PC may update the data, with suitable locking, which must be
pushed out to all the others. It must be possible for a PC to go down
and
On 15/09/09 17:15, Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hi,
I have a situation where I need to keep data on several PCs on a LAN in
sync. Any PC may update the data, with suitable locking, which must be
pushed out to all the others. It must be possible for a PC to go down
and be brought back on line
On Tuesday 15 September 2009 18:30:01 John Cooper wrote:
On 15/09/09 17:15, Chris Simmonds wrote:
Hi,
I have a situation where I need to keep data on several PCs on a LAN in
sync. Any PC may update the data, with suitable locking, which must be
pushed out to all the others. It must be
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 17:15:18 +0100 (+0100), Chris Simmonds wrote:
One option I have considered is using, say, MySQL with one master node
replicating to all the others and some mechanism to elect a new master
if the original went down. But, that sounds messy. There must be a
neater
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Adrian Bridgett adr...@smop.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 17:15:18 +0100 (+0100), Chris Simmonds wrote:
One option I have considered is using, say, MySQL with one master node
replicating to all the others and some mechanism to elect a new master
if the
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 20:17:56 +0100 (+0100), Stephen Nelson-Smith wrote:
I thought the OP wanted to make the data available over 50 nodes!
DRBD can only have two simultaneous primaries.
Ah yes, I was taking that as meaning that it needed to withstand
failure of a (master) node, but still be
16 matches
Mail list logo
