On 04/10/2013 11:40 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Strange. If this is really true, shared disk failover solution is
> fundamentally broken because the standby needs to start up with the
> shared "corrupted" database at the failover.
How so? Shared disk doesn't use replication. The point I was trying to
make is that replication requires synchronization between two disparate
servers, and verifying they have exactly the same data is a non-trivial
exercise. Even a single transaction after a failover (effectively)
negates the old server because there's no easy "catch up" mechanism yet.
Even if this isn't necessarily true, it's the safest approach IMO.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas@optionshouse.com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
