[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Bitkeeper-announce] Re: downtime
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...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.047 / U:1.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site