On Thu, 29 May 2008, David Fetter wrote:
> It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm standby to those in charge of
> making resources available because the warm standby machine consumes SA
> time, bandwidth, power, rack space, etc., but provides no tangible
> benefit, and this feature would have exactly the same problem.
This is an interesting commentary on the priorities of the customers
you're selling to, but I don't think you can extrapolate from that too
much. The deployments I normally deal with won't run a system unless
there's a failover backup available, period, and the fact that such a
feature is not integrated into the core yet is a major problem for them.
Read-only slaves is a very nice to have, but by no means a prerequisite
before core replication will be useful to some people. Hardware/machine
resources are only worth a tiny fraction of what the data is in some
environments, and in some of those downtime is really, really expensive.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
