On Jan 31, 2003 14:46 -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Actually, with BK it should be possible to have read only clones on
> > multiple servers, should it not? Not that I'm saying BK should foot
> > the bill to do that, but having read-only clones of the primary
> > kernel trees would avoid most downtime.
>
> At the risk of suggesting something insanely complex...
>
> ... assuming BK read-only copies do work, why not actually have 'bk
> pull' for hosts which can serve RO copies of the trees? You
> could use SRV records to locate these transparently to what has been
> deployed now (I'm not really a fan of rfc2782.txt but nonetheless it
> exists and others are using it, so it's a 'standard' of sorts).
>
> Presumably doing something like this means you could have many people
> voluntarily providing RO trees for different projects and lessen the
> load on the bitmover infrastructure...
That's exactly what I was suggesting, but not very clearly it seems.
Cheers, Andreas
-- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:26 EST