I understand that Reality has LOTS of 'em! because they took the time
to "do it right" ... and once the facility was there, people used it
(I'm not sure if their "clusters" operate on Windows though, quite
likely *nix only)


Albino Timberwolf wrote:

Ross, do as you will but I recommend you slap another name on it.
When I think 'Visage' I think application development. It's really
confusing when you say Visage does this and that, makes me think
someone needs to buy a new application development environment to do
whatever function X people are discussing, and that's the marketing
fault that I keep bringing up over the years.

(Where the heck did This come from?) I don't remember which, but this
reminds me of some scifi book where one word was used to describe a
whole assortment of concepts that seemed unrelated in the English
language - sort of like in English we use the words 'rice' or 'snow'
as global catch-alls, where asians and enuits would have a much more
diverse vocabulary for the same. "Stranger in a Strange Land" comes
to mind (though the word wasn't 'grok'), and seems to fit this
situation for more reasons than one.

For the record, with enough demand I'd write up a cross-OS,
cross-DBMS, internet-capable data replication utility as well. At the
moment I don't see the justification for heavy pro-bono effort.

Regards,
T

"Ross Ferris" wrote:

Even with it's huge strength in Resilience, Reality cannot replicate
O/S level files as per the original post, I have to say (and yes I'm
biased) it does one hell of a job of replicating the database! In near
realtime (well as near realtime as you can physically get) an update to
the primary (live) database will be propagated to the secondary
(standby) database - This is something we call 'failsafe', others call
this hotbackup etc. Reality has systems out there using this technology
which haven't had a loss of service for many years, yes machines have
failed, but they simply switch to the standby (secondary) machine and
they're away again. This technology is available across all of our
supported platforms!

With any data replication software which works at the host O/S level
you MAY well have issues with it trying to replicate open files,
Reality keeps the number of truly open host level files to a minimum,
i.e you might have 5000 files open inside the application, but only say
10 at the host level, this is due to the database structure we use, but
the problem is still there.

Now I suspect that as the original poster had the requirement to backup
O/S level files then they are not using a server dedicated to running
their MV implementation, maybe they ought to consider whether they
should use it solely for MV, cost of hardware is so cheap now it's
almost irrelevant (from a monetary point of view). If they can/are
using it solely for MV then I would question why they have to backup
host level files in this manner to another machine at all. I'm not
saying you shouldn't backup the entire machine, but it's not
necessarilly needed to be done to a hotbackup.

Mark


Ross Ferris wrote:

Thank you for your clarity.

<mark.fuller (AT) northgate-is (DOT) com> wrote