Richard Davey wrote:
Hello Jochem,
Friday, April 22, 2005, 8:13:15 AM, you wrote:
JM> in a round about way he seems to be asking 'why'? which is not
JM> totally invalid.
To be honest when I ask people "why?" I actually use that word (or at
least something closely related to it).
JM> do you want/need a master/slave configuration
JM> or true decentralisation and/or two way syncing?
See my reply to Drewcore for far more detail which answers the above.
JM> sounds like a costly undertaking, not to be taken lightly... I'm
JM> interested to understand the requirement that dictates such server
JM> redundancy. Given the implied cost, planning/implementation should
JM> probably left to a company who already knows the answers to your
JM> questions :-/?
This isn't about redundancy, it's about enhancing the experience for
customers physically located thousands of miles away from the server
they are trying to access. So, bring the content closer to them and
drop their wait times massively. It's easy for those of us sat on the
end of cable connections to become complacent about this IMHO (i.e.
"the Internet is fast enough now that you don't need to do this"), but
in reality that's not really yet the case.
interesting problem you have. the first thing that jumps into my head is
Squid... http://www.squid-cache.org/
Squid is really powerful and a bitch to get to grips with ;-).
If you were to take the 'Squid' route you would only be replicating (caching)
you main servers output rather than having to replicate DBs/source-files etc.
good luck which ever route you take.
Best regards,
Richard Davey
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
