|
> From: Simon Coulter > > ALL business applications should be using journalling for forward > recovery and any application that has transactions that affect more > than one file should be using commitment control. No excuses! This is the type of bollix I'd really like to keep off this list. Having journaling and commitment control may indeed be more reliable than not having them. However, there is a price to pay in terms of disk space and performance. That price is essentially the cost you pay for insurance against hard disk crashes. Now, if you have (please, folks, this is an extreme example done ONLY for illustrative purposes) a system where no data changes and your system rarely if ever crashes, then commitment control would be a VERY non-cost-effective situation. On the other hand, if you ran millions of transactions a day through a box that went casters up every 36 hours, then I'd suggest that commitment control is probably a good thing. So, once again, this is NOT a philosophical issue, it's a business decision. Does it make sense to spend the money on commitment control? How often does your machine have a hard crash? Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.