Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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.
OK, I did break it out somewhat for clarity. Let me know how it looks
now.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +