Talk:Replication (computing)

Use of the term Disk Storage Replication

The article uses the term Disk Storage Replication to refer the replication of storage at a block level. Although as a term it isnt inaccurate for some solutions it isnt an industry term and it isnt applicable to all the types of replication that are under that subheading. The term Volume Replication or Block Replication is what is more commonly used in the industry. It also relevant to both Hardware and Software. So even though software replication is mentioned as a type of "Disk Storage Replication" it just doesnt make a lot of sense. Most, if not all, software replication products that work in this fashion replicate volumes, not the whole disk. I suggest that we use the term Block Replication and then subhead those to Volume Replication for software products and Disk Storage Replication for hardware products. The Synchronous / Asynchronous is generic to both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabkins (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

CORBA

What about open standards like FT CORBA from OMG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.96.178 (talk)

External links

What about external links like:

• Specific Database Replication Technologies
  • Slony-I - A replication system for PostgreSQL
  • MySQL Database Replication Links

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtseifried (talk • contribs)

I would prefer as few external links as possible. Wikipedia is not a link directory. External links sections often get out of hand, especially when one provides such an obvious space for advertising. -- intgr 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Active/active replication POV/advert

I have tagged the "Active/active replication" section with {{advert}}, since it currently claims that WANdisco has exclusively invented non-master/slave replication, and seems to imply that theirs is the only possible/existing approach, and that it has no drawbacks. However, no reliable sources supporting its uniqueness are presented, and I fail to take this for granted. Claiming that it's a "new mathematical theory" further trips my buzzword meter.

This is coupled with the fact that there's also a Wandisco article with these same claims, which was tagged advert for a second, but subsequently had the tag removed by an anonymous user (diff).

Some factual information about their implementation is certainly needed to make this entry encyclopedic. Reflecting the advantages/disadvantages would be a start. The obvious question arises that how they resolve conflicting updates (e.g., things that would otherwise cause lock waits or deadlocks). -- intgr 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added clarity that WANdisco's technology works efficiently over a WAN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlsfan (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlsfan (talk • contribs)

I can address this a bit. I am a co-Founder/Inventor of WANdisco and was the CTO till the last month (Jan'07). WANdisco implements conflict avoidance using its DCone (Distributed Coordination engine) as mentioned in the WANdisco whitepaper and the pending patent.

--Brahul1 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

disk storage replication

on Semi-synchronous replication: considering that synchronous doesn't always refer to a temporal synchronicity but rather a structural one, my guess is that "semi-synchronous" simply refers to a unidirectional replication when thats sufficient for the use case, that is if you consider one replicant as a source and (an)other(s) as target(s). common cases are copycat behavior and any kind of oneway communication, where a replicant (target) needs only to consume external information rather than to advertise its own. on the other hand, unidirectional replication comes in handy, when the source replicant is unable to consume information (write protection). Robin479 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't agree. This isn't mentioned in the article, but currently popular disk storage replication methods are predominantly unidirectional. So all three designations—synchronous, semi-synchronous, asynchronous—usually refer to unidirectional transfers. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-objective terms?

The article says "Jim Gray, a towering figure within the database community..." Who wrote this, Jim Gray's PR firm? This is completely gratuitous flattery and does not add in any way to the article or the reader's understanding of database replication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.49.237.90 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added a reference. Non-objective terms are OK on Wikipedia, if sourced. I don't feel readers will be distracted by the short remark, and it sure adds some color to this dull subject. Anyway, please feel free to re-phrase if you think it improves the article. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There was still a problem with it. Jim Gray, a towering figure^[8] within the database community is attributed but presented in Wikipedia's voice, as if this is an objective encyclopedic fact. It isn't NPOV. We have to give inline attribution like Jim Gray, who was described by X as "a towering figure in the database community"^[8]. I don't have access to the offline source, so I can't make that edit myself, but I agree with the original poster that it is gratuitous and does not add to the understanding of the subject. I changed it to "Computer scientist Jim Gray" and people can follow the link to find out how tall he is, if that is in any way notable. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)