On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 18:39 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 17:42 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
>
> You must be gauging a different market from the one I'm in. I have just
> come back from a meeting with a (quite technically savvy) customer who
One customer does not make a hundred. I am not saying that the shipping
isn't valid, just that those that I talk to are more interested in the
read only slave. Consider that we have any number of ways to solve the
problem we are considering implementing now. DRBD being just one of
them. Especially considering we aren't talking about failover etc..
> was quite excited by the news and saw the possibility of read-only
> slaves as a nice to have extra rather than a must-have-or-it's-not-worth
> anything feature.
>
> I'm really quite astounded and rather saddened by the waves of
> negativity I have seen today.
I have seen much more positive than negative. I think most are just
trying to figure out exactly what we are talking about.
I for example am not really against the feature at all. I am suspect of
the idea of only shipping 2 components of a 3 component feature though.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
