dustin at spy.net
Fri Sep 28 05:16:16 UTC 2007
On Sep 27, 2007, at 21:56, Paul Scott wrote:
>> Agreed. Wouldn=92t it be great though to have a mem-based HA =
> I would certainly vote +1 on that idea!
You do realize you wouldn't have anything remotely like the =20
performance of memcached, don't you? You'd need something along the =20
lines of two-phase-commit if you want any kind of correctness. If =20
you don't want correctness, then why are you worried about HA?
If you lose a node, how do you plan on rematerializing? A =
synchronization would block both nodes in a two-node cluster.
How would you handle conflicts during rematerialization after a =20=
Is it acceptable to block all clients during a netsplit (pending =
some sort of magical synchronization that knows what to do when =20
After you get all of the pieces in place, are you sure you'd =
something that would be any faster than any solution that isn't =20
More information about the memcached