The closest I find is DB2 Multisystem
http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v7r1m0/topic/dbmult/rzaf3kickoff.htm
However, that's not really what you're talking about, right?
I think you're talking about a product which may have the database on both
systems. And if SystemA updates a row the change is automatically
replicated to SystemB and vice versa. And if systemA is down SystemB
keeps right on working. When SystemA comes back up the changes are caught
up. Now if the comm drops and people keep working on SystemA and SystemB
then you may get conflicts that have to be manually handled. For example,
both systems update item master # PizzaDough.
Am I on the right track?
Now, I have Domino doing this on Domino data, not db2 data. And I do get
a few of these conflicts. I would hate to think of the number of
conflicts I would get on high volume db2 type transactions.
Are you talking about doing this for:
1 - High Availability,
2 - Load Balancing
3 - better response time in remote locations?
I would think a bigger box would be a far better answer for Load
Balancing. Our scalability is much better.
Based on that same theory, I would think one of the existing H/A solutions
would be a better fit for your High Availability concerns. After all,
casino's are running IBM i. Those people do not handle downtime well.
Domino has more of an issue with remote locations. We're not talking
about a column here, a row there. We're talking about a 'document' which
may contain a 200MB attachment. Local response time versus remote
response time is more of a real concern. With modern communications I
don't see this as such an issue with DB2 transactions.
Rob Berendt
midrange.com
