Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Architecture Questions

[Mike Warren]

Bob Dodd <address@hidden> writes:

> "If you want an example of a real commercial company that uses this
> apporach for high availablity, look at people like ObjectStore who
> use this divide-and-conquer approach: if you had 3 servers, they
> would divide your data into 3 parts, and each machine would hold 2/3
> of the whole so that machine A would hold parts a & b, machine B
> would hold parts a & c, and machine C would hold parts b & c (or
> some combination of the same?) So if any one server fails it is
> still possible to continue.  With more machines, they would make
> smaller parts, and each machine would perhaps hold more parts."

I've used ObjectStore and it is a huge pain in the ass. It works
decently if you have to do a lot of data-massaging before anything
else sees the data, but such is not the case for this project. Also,
changing the type of objects (i.e. the DTD/Schema) is so much of pain
that re-creating the entire database is usually much, much easier; not
a good solution in this case.

> I don't know how good mySQL is at dealing with this sort of
> mirroring, I suspect this may not be the model that its creators had
> in mind... If not, what is it? Anyone?

Doesn't Apache handle such things?

-- 
address@hidden
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A  0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD