At 11:09 AM -0700 2000/4/10, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I can't say I'm impressed. Oracle itself is a very complete relational
> database, but their replication capabilities suck. They only do
> non-quorum fully synchronous replication or non-quorum fully
> asynchronous replication. They do not do quorum synchronous replication
> (which means that if you have 10 replicated sites in a multi-master
> configuration, and one goes down, you are screwed), and they don't
> support asynchronous (to the transaction) commits in a replicated
> environment (where basically a site sends the phase-2 commit
> acknowledgement before actually committing the physical data, which makes
> transactions go a whole lot faster without sacrificing much, if any,
> data integrity). Also, Oracle's replication is built out of SQL
> procedures and triggers and is very, *VERY* fragile. If you make
> one mistake running management commands, you screw the whole cluster.
> Unacceptable!
Alright. I think I understood about one word out of ten out of
that, enough to know that you feel they have some problems and to
have some inkling as to what they might be.
So, this begs the inevitable next question -- what do you think
*does* work well with respect to these issues? And what problems
does this system have that perhaps Oracle doesn't?
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
======================================================================
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV
Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124
Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49 || B-1140 Brussels
http://www.skynet.be || Belgium
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
