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

[morphius]

> --- 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 minutes out of date" or anything else, I think we're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