In the case of hardware failure, no database on this planet can 'guarantee' there will be no corruption, if you have a single point of failure, and it fails, everything fails, hence the term single as opposed to many points of failure.
One of the most important things about software design, in any area, is the concept of maximisation and minimisation. For example, in this case you can only minimise the chance of corruption, or maximise the chance the of recovery, or both. Obviously, having both sides of the story present will reveal a fuller picture, its called the art of abstraction. If anyone asks you if you glass is half empty or half full, tell them you design software so your glass is never empty and always filling. Simon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Cheng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <server-dev@james.apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 12:27 AM Subject: Re: Innodb better? > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/corrupted-myisam-tables.html > > According to this link, killing mysqld or turning off the computer in > mid-write could result in table corruption with MyISAM. Not too > surprising considering it doesn't support transactions. I personally > would find this completely unacceptable for an "enterprise" e-mail server. > > Doesn't this terrify everyone else, and if not, why not?? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 24/06/2005 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
