db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dibyendu Majumdar" <dibye...@mazumdar.demon.co.uk>
Subject Re: [jira] Created: (DERBY-218) Add Relaxed Durability option
Date Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:20:09 GMT
From: "Mike Matrigali" <mikem_app@sbcglobal.net>
>  From responses to Dan's original post on building a system with the
> sync options disabled it seemed like there was enough response that
> those options should be made available.  I admit I am worried because
> this system can no longer guarantee recoverability.  It would be
> interesting to know how people would use such a configuration. 

I agree with you that a database system without recoverability is useless. 
The memory option is better if someone wants to create a database on 
the fly and has no need to store it on disk.

In my own testing with Derby, I get frustrated with the startup overhead
of the embedded database. If XA was supported in the network server 
option, my problem would be solved. I would no longer use the embedded
option when testing - and avoid the startup overhead.

I think that before considering the less durability option, it would be
better to think what problem people are trying to solve, and see if
there is a better and more useful way of solving it.

A key differentiator of Derby is its full support for recoverability.
In my view, it is not a good idea to dilute this in any way. 
In many ways, I suppose the question is - what is the community really
after? Does it want to be everyman's development database,
or does it aspire to be a production strength database that can be
used in mission critical systems? 



View raw message