> preferably without needing at least three machines
if you don't have such redundancy your data is not safe, no matter what database engine you are running.
if you don't have such redundancy your data is not safe, no matter what database engine you are running.
Sorry you cannot possibly defend un-acknowledged writes as a default setting on a product that calls itself a database. Saying you need 3 machines anyway.
By coming up with more arguments and excuses as a defense for this design you are actually making the product you are defending look worse.
but the poster to which i was replying seemed to be saying that machine redundancy was somehow optional. it is not. hardware fails, and the architecture of whatever db server you are using is irrelevant when it does.