Thomas Lotterer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31. July 2007 at 3:04 pm, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:02 AM, Thomas Lotterer wrote:
>>> On Monday, 30. July 2007 at 9:26 pm, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Thomas Lotterer wrote:
>>>>> Decision:
>>>>> - exclusively use Berkeley DB
>>>>     3) NFS support
>>>>
>>> This can be rewritten to "networked filesystem support". BDB, SQLite
>>> and any embedded DB require proper filesystem locking. Given the
>>> environmental issues of a networked filesystem this will never work
>>> reliably.
>>>
>> I don't disagree. However, an answer for client/server rpmdb needs to
>> be identified.
>>
> No use case for client/server rpmdb has been brought to my attention.

You have a chassis w/ 8 blades.  1 blade acts as an internal server for
the other 7 blades.  It serves a kernel and filesystem to the other 7.

The other 7 blades boot and have to do things related to the rpm
database.  Over NFS the blades can blow up.. using RPC they will be able
to manipulate the database as necessary.

That is a very common usage scenario in the Telecommunication space.  7
blades do the work, 1 (or 2) blades act as a control infrastructure.

--Mark