On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 07:20:37PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
>
> So you can do lossless failover. Currently there is no good
> solution for this.
Indeed. Getting lossless failover would be excellent.
I understand David's worry (having had those arguments more times than
I care to admit), but if people don't want to spend the money on the
extra machine that can't be queried, they can use another solution for
the time being.
The big missing piece is lossless failover. People are currently
doing it with DRBD, various clustering things, &c., and those are
complicated to set up and maintain. (As I've told more than one
person looking at it, there is a risk that you'll actually make your
installation complicated enough that you'll make it _less_ reliable.
I have some bitter personal experiences with this effect, and I know
some others on this list do as well.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/