On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:09:30PM -0600, Jima wrote: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, seth vidal wrote: > >On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 12:16 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > >>The managemetn side of mirrormanager is. But the "serve out the > >>existing mirror information" side is perfectly fine without FAS (and > >>realistically, is the part that more of us think of when we think MM) > > > >in my mind: > >mirrormanger - the management side > >mirrorlist - the actual mirrorlists > > Ditto. > I do agree, though, that we could probably make mirrorlist redundant > without necessarily making mirrormanager so, and that would fulfill most > of our needs. Right. In practice, mirrorlist doesn't need regular access to the database, and in case we can't reach the database, can continue to offer slighly stale data (e.g. >1 hour old, which right now it never is). Which should be just fine. Mike wanted me too stop doing queries on app4, and just pull the data that's queried from app3. Now that we're talking about more app servers for the mirrorlist, this makes even more sense, and I'll look to do this. We will need app3 to generate the data, and then copy it to the other app servers. -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
