db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Created: (DERBY-218) Add Relaxed Durability option
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:42:40 GMT
Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> 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.

The original driving force for this is to allow Derby to be used for
unit testing by other Apache projects. Here there is no need to
guarantee recoverability but there is a requirement to execute as fast
as possible. In-memory is an option but it's more work to implement than
a relaxed durability option, the relaxed durability option is just
shuffling some existing code around. An additional benefit of relaxed
durability over in-memory is that the database can be left on disk for
post failure analysis.

So I see both are useful, it's not a case of one or the other, and the
relaxed durability could be implemented in a few days.

Dan.


Mime
View raw message