Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/25/2011 2:11 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>> Not everything deals in transactions, though. The recently popular
>>>> distributed database versions that scale up are more about doing
>>>> something reasonable in scenarios where you can't guarantee a
>>>> transaction state (where 'reasonable' is defined by the application).
>>>>
>> Well... except that in this context, it's not only database
>> transactions: it's any granular interaction between client and server.
>> You don't, for example, want part of a form you've just clicked<submit>
>> on to only partly get there, if there's a network blip or whatever.
>
> If 'get there' is defined as all redundant copies being in a consistent
> state, then you'll fail at this point in transactional mode in the
> fairly likely event that you have a network blip between the db master
> and slave(s) or one of them is down. For a lot of things it would be
<snip>
Les, ignore d/b. Think of you submitting, from your browser, a request for
something, and the transaction is incomplete, and it gets to the server,
and instead of getting what it was allowed to, it gets something below
that level, that it's *not* allowed to get, and you really *don't* want
accesible, but it can do it as apache....
Or something as trivial as requesting something, and your email address is
truncated.
BEA doesn't make Big Bucks for Tuxedo, for example, only for d/b
transactions.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
