On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term
> 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a
> well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to
> avoid that term.
<snip>
> IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a synchronous replication for a
> 'Shared Disk Fail Over'. It's not replication, because there's no replica.
Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on
everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use
terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably.
Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability
solution. A few are more concerned with scalability. Sometimes it's a
combination of both. That's why I think it's good for the chapter to
deal with both aspects of this.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)