Hi Scott, I think you are right, and I think all the rest of OrientDB team will agree with you. The name "cluster" is completely misleading when talking about physical data portions. Some time ago I proposed to use the name "data file" to refer to physical files that contain data (that is what clusters are now), but "shards" makes a lot of sense as well (at a logical level).
The real problem here is that all our docs use the word "cluster" to refer to data files and a lot of users are used to that. >From my point of view, we could start to change this naming and gradually review all our docs My 2 cents Luigi 2016-06-10 9:44 GMT+02:00 'scott molinari' via OrientDB < [email protected]>: > Hi, > > From a horizontal scaling, distributed database standpoint, I feel the > semantics used in ODB aren't quite right (although they are pretty cool > nonetheless). I apologize for being pedantic, but to me, a "cluster" should > be a group of nodes in the distributed data setup. As I understand > computing distribution, what ODB calls "clusters" should actually be called > "shards", as it is the concept of sharding that is being done with the > clusters, right? > > http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/database_shard.html > > Or am I totally out to lunch? > > Scott > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OrientDB" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OrientDB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
