View source for Talk:Replication (computing)

{{WikiProject Computing|class=|importance=}}
== Use of the term Disk Storage Replication ==

The article uses the term '''Disk Storage Replication''' to refer the replication of storage at a block level.  Although as a term it isnt inaccurate for some solutions it isnt an industry term and it isnt applicable to all the types of replication that are under that subheading.  The term '''Volume Replication''' or '''Block Replication''' is what is more commonly used in the industry.  It also relevant to both Hardware and Software.   So even though software replication is mentioned as a type of "Disk Storage Replication" it just doesnt make a lot of sense.  Most, if not all, software replication products that work in this fashion replicate volumes, not the whole disk.  I suggest that we use the term '''Block Replication''' and then subhead those to '''Volume Replication''' for software products and '''Disk Storage Replication''' for hardware products.  The Synchronous / Asynchronous is generic to both.

==CORBA==
What about open standards like FT CORBA from OMG? {{unsignedIP|195.72.96.178}}

==External links==
What about external links like:

* Specific Database Replication Technologies
** [http://www.slony.info/ Slony-I - A replication system for PostgreSQL]
** [http://www.mysql.com/search/?q=database+replication&charset= MySQL Database Replication Links]
<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kurtseifried|Kurtseifried]] ([[User talk:Kurtseifried|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kurtseifried|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:I would prefer as few external links as possible. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a link directory]]. External links sections often get out of hand, especially when one provides such an obvious space for advertising. -- [[User:Intgr|intgr]] 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

==Active/active replication POV/advert==
I have tagged the "Active/active replication" section with {{tl|advert}}, since it currently claims that WANdisco has exclusively invented non-master/slave replication, and seems to imply that theirs is the only possible/existing approach, and that it has no drawbacks. However, no reliable sources supporting its uniqueness are presented, and I fail to take this for granted. Claiming that it's a "new mathematical theory" further trips my buzzword meter.

This is coupled with the fact that there's also a [[Wandisco]] article with these same claims, which was tagged advert for a second, but subsequently had the tag removed by an anonymous user ([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wandisco&diff=93771283&oldid=93423435 diff]).

Some factual information about their implementation is certainly needed to make this entry encyclopedic. Reflecting the advantages/disadvantages would be a start. The obvious question arises that how they resolve conflicting updates (e.g., things that would otherwise cause lock waits or deadlocks). -- [[User:Intgr|intgr]] 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I have added clarity that WANdisco's technology works efficiently over a WAN. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Owlsfan|Owlsfan]] ([[User talk:Owlsfan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Owlsfan|contribs]]) 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC).</small><small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Owlsfan|Owlsfan]] ([[User talk:Owlsfan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Owlsfan|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: I can address this a bit. I am a co-Founder/Inventor of WANdisco and was the CTO till the last month (Jan'07).  WANdisco implements conflict avoidance using its DCone (Distributed Coordination engine) as mentioned in the WANdisco whitepaper and the pending patent. 
--[[User:Brahul1|Brahul1]] 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

==disk storage replication==
on <b>Semi-synchronous replication</b>: considering that ''synchronous'' doesn't always refer to a ''temporal synchronicity'' but rather a ''structural'' one, my guess is that "semi-synchronous" simply refers to a unidirectional replication when thats sufficient for the use case, that is if you consider one replicant as a source and (an)other(s) as target(s). common cases are copycat behavior and any kind of oneway communication, where a replicant (target) needs only to consume external information rather than to advertise its own. on the other hand, unidirectional replication comes in handy, when the source replicant is <u>unable</u> to consume information (write protection). [[User:Robin479|Robin479]] ([[User talk:Robin479|talk]]) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Hmmm, I don't agree. This isn't mentioned in the article, but currently popular disk storage replication methods are predominantly unidirectional. So all three designations&mdash;synchronous, semi-synchronous, asynchronous&mdash;usually refer to unidirectional transfers. --[[User:Kubanczyk|Kubanczyk]] ([[User talk:Kubanczyk|talk]]) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)