[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy...
From: |
morphius |
Subject: |
Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy... |
Date: |
Fri, 03 May 2002 16:41:00 -0700 (PDT) |
> --- Eric Altendorf <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > If we want to guarantee that the CI remains
> > consistent, or remains "at most X
> > minutes out of date" or anything else, I think we're
> > going to have to resort
> > to transactions. Pretty much ANY time we want to
> > make a guarantee about data
> > consistency across a distributed network, we're
> > going to have to use
> > distributed transactions with two phase commit.
> >
>
> I agree that transactions are the way to go. However,
> a two phase commit is a problem, if you mean the
> second phase as a verification step. There is no
> process that we can afford to hold pending
> verification. We might run a background monitor
> tracing all transaction results, but if we design this
> right, that shouldn't be necessary. And it would
> certainly incresase the overhead significantly.
>
> We are trying to maintain an organic looseness between
> the LDS elements.
I agree with the looseness of LDS within a cluster but a 2 phase commit will
provide better reliability and rollback support.
- Morphius
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., morphius, 2002/05/03
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy...,
morphius <=
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., Bill Lance, 2002/05/03
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., Chris Smith, 2002/05/07
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., Bill Lance, 2002/05/07
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., Chris Smith, 2002/05/08
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., Bill Lance, 2002/05/08
- Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., Chris Smith, 2002/05/08
Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy..., morphius, 2002/05/07