Re: Bi-directional transactional replication on IBM i

["Raul A. Jager W." <raul@xxxxxxxxxx>]

iCluster replicates data base, I think it has a bidirectional option, 
but it is not in the base product.

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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
>