To lessen the mud:

When I used the expression "Coherence-like (*) storage" I mean
thinking of it as if Coherence is working like a final store instead
of as an intermediate store to Oracle, using the Partitioned x
Redundant topology.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Paulo Gaspar <lists.yahoo@...>
> Date: 19 de junho de 2008 19:39:20 GMT+01:00
> To: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Well, here we go again
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>

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