On 10/30/06, Erik LaBianca <erik@...> wrote:
>
> Alex Peshkov wrote:
> >
> >
> > Erik LaBianca:
> >> A superserver system will never be able
> >> to continue serving requests through a hardware failure, whereas
> classic
> >> operating on a cluster could do so.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, Erik, but it does. A number of clients of our company use SS
> > fail-resistant clusters for last 4 years. Even without expensive shared
> > storage.
> >
>
> How? Shadow databases on NFS? With that architecture you'll still have
> to delegate a master database to receive all write traffic and
> communicate it to the clients... I've certainly not seen any such
> solution documented...
>
> --erik
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]