Timeline for Is it possible to have 2 or more databases active, and synchronized between them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2011 at 0:37 | comment | added | Mark Storey-Smith | @JamesRyan has it in a nutshell. In responses to your questions and conversations in chat, we've all tried to convince you that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with your replication as HA solution. We were wrong. We should have been pointing out that any solution tied to a relational database was inappropriate in your situation. | |
| Dec 2, 2011 at 18:15 | answer | added | mrdenny | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 2, 2011 at 18:05 | vote | accept | RagnaRock | ||
| Dec 2, 2011 at 18:04 | history | edited | RagnaRock | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| Nov 29, 2011 at 16:38 | vote | accept | RagnaRock | ||
| Dec 2, 2011 at 18:04 | |||||
| Nov 10, 2011 at 17:00 | comment | added | JamesRyan | is this even relational data? might it be better to bring it into a db at a later point before the reporting stage? | |
| Nov 10, 2011 at 12:33 | comment | added | Mark Storey-Smith | So the assumption is that the database is prone to not being available but the application and sensors are infallible? | |
| Nov 10, 2011 at 12:28 | comment | added | RagnaRock | @MarkStorey-Smith each application will save data from a sensor into the database, a second kind of application will connect to one of the databases and analyse/process that data to generate some reports, etc. these databases will be on a boat, so I'll need more than one so that if one goes down, the 'sensor' application can still work by connecting to other database. that's pretty much it. | |
| Nov 10, 2011 at 8:20 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackDBAs/status/134546073699090432 | ||
| Nov 9, 2011 at 19:06 | comment | added | jcolebrand♦ | @RagnaRock I think you're going to have to do as MarkStoreySmith suggested and give us more information. You seem to be off on a few concepts here. | |
| Nov 9, 2011 at 18:52 | answer | added | gbn | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 9, 2011 at 18:47 | comment | added | Mark Storey-Smith | You're mixing objectives, redundancy/availability and scalability. If you could add a description of the application, the anticipated workload and the budget you have, you'll get far more valuable answers. At the moment, all I can suggest with the information you've provided is that you are probably "barking up the wrong tree". | |
| Nov 9, 2011 at 18:34 | history | edited | RagnaRock | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 417 characters in body
|
| Nov 9, 2011 at 18:29 | comment | added | RagnaRock | I'm testing possible solutions for database redundancy and high availability,I tested mirroring it worked fine, but lacks scalability plus there will be a lot of work in one server. Now I find about Merge Replication, and in paper looks great (although I still need to know what happens if a server goes down and them comes alive again, will it synchronize?) | |
| Nov 9, 2011 at 18:29 | answer | added | datagod | timeline score: 3 | |
| S Nov 9, 2011 at 18:05 | history | suggested | dabest1 |
Added a tag.
|
|
| Nov 9, 2011 at 17:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 9, 2011 at 18:05 | |||||
| Nov 9, 2011 at 17:46 | comment | added | Mark Storey-Smith | You haven't stated what the problem you're trying to solve is. Take a step back, start at the beginning, why do you need this topology? | |
| Nov 9, 2011 at 16:00 | history | asked | RagnaRock | CC BY-SA 3.0 |