RE: Triggers Vs. Journalling

["Rooney, Michael P" <michael.p.rooney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael,

I would opt for a solution based on journaling as the DB records
would still be accessible should you encounter a program error.
While not impossible, this would be little more complicated using
triggers.  As you're looking to provide continuity between 2 systems,
I would go with the resilient (and proven) approach via journaling.

Just my thoughts...

Michael Rooney
Citigroup International 

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
michaelr_41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:23 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Triggers Vs. Journalling


I'd appreciate opinions (especially if they're based on fact <smile>)
regarding remote database synchronization. I have a situation where I
need to keep some files updated on a remote iSeries system in the
unlikely event the main iSeries crashes. I can't go the package route
now due to cost constraints. Since there are only three files (but large
ones with a lot of records), I was thinking I could trigger the files on
the main system and write add/change/delete records to a file. I could
then transfer the file to the remote system (every x minutes) and apply
those changes to the corresponding remote file. I could do the same
thing with journalling. 

Thoughts?


-- 
  
  michaelr_41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.