So here's a question, particularly for POCs. Is "master" a problematic word when not juxtaposed with "slave"? My guess is not, because the word has a much broader meaning in English, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Show this thread
-
Master / slave has no reason to be bad unless it is in relation to people. It makes perfect sense for databases etc.
Nah, master/slave is bad terminology in tech because it's overloaded too much. "primary/replica" is a lot more descriptive for databases, or "active/standby" for automated failover styles in particular. master/slave doesn't say much.
-
-
Even if you think master/slave is not an issue due to the slavery association, I still wouldn't use those terms for anything I design just because they kind of suck at actually describing what's going on.
-
I really only think of master/slave in connotation with IDE drives. I’m trying to think of a good word combo for that, which is kind of useless anyway since it’s more or less a dead technology.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
But in sql replication the replica isn’t a copy, it actually executes all the same commands as the master as the log is sent over, and it’s not standby as you can query it. You can have dual master/slave even where both sides are both master and slave, active/standby doesn’t work
-
SQL replication can be accomplished multiple ways, SQL log shipping is just one of them :-) But either way, primary/replica works just fine. You can still query the replica (read-only) and changes to the primary are replicated to the replica.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.