[OT] - but...
Do not throw out database replication as a solution. Trying to maintain
synchronicity across multiple databases is not a trivial task. You have to
cope with single point failure at the transaction level, (eg the server
'one' update works, but server 'two' fails) clashes (same
Wouldn't it be easier to just buy an external RAID enclosure with dual
scsi ports, and connect it both machines to the same disk
backend? Your replication problem goes away, and you have half as
many disks available for failure.
Some models even allow for connection among three or more
This is important when clustering for redundancy purposes,
I'm trying to address 2 issues:
A. Avoiding a single point of failure associated with a
having a central repository for the data, such as a NFS
share or a single database server.
B. Avoiding the overhead from using heavyweight
I'm trying to address 2 issues:
A. Avoiding a single point of failure associated with a
having a central repository for the data, such as a NFS
share or a single database server.
B. Avoiding the overhead from using heavyweight tools like
database replication.
So I've been
