On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Alan Brown wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Tom wrote: > > > Basically, nntpcache would have to dowload XOVER info from both servers, > > and drop duplicate articles. nntpcache would have to generate its own > > article numbering somehow. > > Wouldn't it be nice though? Oh yes. It would be beautiful. You could use for fault-tolerance as well, so if one server fails, nntpcache just consults the one server. You could perhaps even extend the algorithms to works for N servers. > Granted, it does go beyond the basic nntpcache concept, but it > reintroduces the concept of redundant newsfeeds and eliminates user > gripes when the parent server is down (and there's nothing the > local admin can do about that as a rule). > > We already have a message-id database, that's probably the hardest > part. Except basically all article handling will have to be done by message-IDs. This will probably slows things down, specially stuff like XOVER merging. > AB Tom
