Hi,


That IBM product looks very similar to Oracle's (previously
Tangosol's) Coherence.

Being a Java man, I am sure Mr. Jenks must have eared about it,
especially because Cameron Purdy (Tangosol founder) is widely known
and respected by the Java Open Source community.


Since the beginning of this thread (yes, Paul and Jim, keep it coming)
Coherence keeps popping in my mind and I already created a "New mail
message" a few times to post something about it... just to quit before
making sure of some details about it (ACID) which could invalidate it.

Now that I did my home work and that Mr. Jenks went the Object Grid
way, I must say that Coherence's success is the market's proof that a
decent implementation Jim's idea would be very well received.

Actually:
- Jim, are you trying to build something Oracle would by? I mean,
after being bought by MySql, what's next?
=;o)

Just talking about Social Sites was a bad disguise: Social Sites can
mostly live without a database. Memcache, some persistent hash tables
and a text search system like Solr are enough for most of its needs.


One of my friends works for Oracle. Whenever he starts bragging about
how wonderful Coherence is to scale out Oracle databases I ask him:
- Can I still use SQL everywhere?

From his face, I am far from being the first one asking this question.


Oracle certainly bought Coherence because many of their richest
customers missed some way to seriously scale out their databases. But
I am sure many are now missing SQL on top of it.


Database Clusters? Those seem to be something that many DBAs love to
hate. Their scalability is limited, unlike the cost and shared storage
troubles.

A SQL Engine using a Coherence-like (*) storage looks more like it.

(*) Please don't take this likeness too strictly.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

On 2008-06-19, at 00:19, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Jim Starkey wrote:
>
>> paulruizendaal wrote:
>>> "> RAC or WOO, that's the question.
>>> I'm not talking about a single node database but a cloud. I don't
>>> think there is any future for single node databases."
>>>
>>> Huh? The RAC design pattern has proven to scale out to 50+ nodes...
>>> how is that a single node database?
>>>
>>> Some more thoughts tomorrow. BTW, nobody but us seems to be
>>> interested in this discussion, so perhaps we should take it private
>>> and not polute this newsgroup.
>>>
>> It's a classic cluster design like Rdb, Interbase, or Firebird:
>> Shared
>> disk synchronized by cluster lock manager.
>>
>> Boring. And old. It combines the worst of disks with the worst of
>> networks. The smart thing is to use the strengths of networks to
>> relegate disks to the backroom where they won't bother anyone.
>>
>>
> IBM has a AFAIK poorly documented project called ObjectGrid that among
> many other things does reliable storage via in memory replication over
> 2+ nodes and can persist to disk in at least one way (into a
> relational database). Although the documentation I found
> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wxdinfo/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.websphere.xd.doc/info/prodovr/cobgojbectgrid.html
> pushes the "extended map" interface it may well have other mechanisms
> exposed or used internally. It doesn't try for "write only" when
> used with a disk storage but can be used without a disk backing
> store. I don't know anything about how objectgrid decides how widely
> to replicate data within a cluster.
>
> Another project that is somewhat related is WADI (opensource at
> codehaus), originally designed for (java) web session clustering. It
> regards both data and requests as movable between nodes and, while
> maintaining enough data copies for reliability, shifts data or
> requests to appropriate nodes so the requests can be serviced.
>
>
> And, as Jiri said, I'm reading every word.
>
> Very good to hear from you, Jim
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
>> --
>> James A. Starkey
>> President, NimbusDB, Inc.
>> 978 526-1376
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>