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

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:0.061 / U:4.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site