Re: server iteration

[Mark Burgess]

There is a failover option in copy. Why is no one discussing that?

M

On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 15:18 -0700, Tod Oace wrote:
> On May 20, 2005, at 02:10, Alexander Jolk wrote:
> 
> >> Does anyone use the server= iteration? I'm not seeing how it would  
> >> be  used the way it currently works. Changing it to stop at the  
> >> first  successful server seems much more useful to me.
> >
> > I'm not using it, but have you thought of combining this with  
> > SingleCopy?  That might just do what you need.
> 
> An interesting idea, but I would still have to double my quantity of  
> copy statements, yes? One set for the primary server and a second for  
> the alternate. Or am I misunderstanding?
> 
> > As an aside, I'm actually choosing one server out of a pool of  
> > three using a strategy.  That gives me load balancing and failover,  
> > but only on a longer timescale.
> 
> I hadn't really looked at strategies: before. That doesn't seem like  
> what I want for failover as I want machines to try their closest  
> server first, but I may find some other use. Thanks!
> 
> > -- 
> > Alexander Jolk         /         BUF Compagnie
> > tel +33-1 42 68 18 28 /  fax +33-1 42 68 18 29
>