Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:52:21 -0700 | From | Andreas Dilger <> | Subject | Re: [Bitkeeper-announce] Re: bkbits.net 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 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/
|  |