[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy...

From: Bill Lance
Subject: Re: [Vrs-development] IBM Token Ring Thingy...
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:04:34 -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 minutes out of date" or anything else, I think we're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.

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]