> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
> > The tough part is syncronicity, should one of the machines drop out
of the
> > cluster and need to be re-added without bringing the others down. In
order
> > to get around that, each query needs to be logged on the master node
with a
> > timestamp, so that the failed node can "catch up" in real-time. That
brings
> > about other considerations, as well....
>
> Exactly! Thats also why I have decided not to implement that feature as
> the deadline is in 3 weeks ;)
Fair!
> If a database server fails it is simple
> discarded from the cluster and can only be reconnected by taking the
> system offline and doing the syncronisation manually.
Where's all that enthusiasm for a new project gone? Ever thought of making
a "new and improved" version 2 or something? I think it's a great idea, and
if we can get a few people together to implement it, it sould be a
worthwhile exercise. And right now, it looks like you have a bit of a head
start. ;-)
Regards.
Gordan
