On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:18:42AM +0000, Toby Dickenson wrote:
I am not really the person to ask, as I haven't actually done it.
But you know you want to ;-)
How did you know? ;) (rsync sync strategy snipped)
That will kinda work, apart from the performance issues mentioned above. Take care over locking on the replica; you dont want replication to restart when the master comes back up after an outage, with the storage still running on the slave.
good point.
The big problem with this is that rsync is not atomic. If the master explodes half way through an rsync then the replica may contain half of the most recent transaction.
what could make the master "explode" if it's in snapshot mode? catastrophic failure of some kind?
1.1 might still be in alpha, but I am sure it is more stable than anything based on rsync. As always, I am already using it in production. Replicating once per minute and performing a full check on the replica storage once per hour. It is looking good so far.
Once per MINUTE??? that's better than anything I hoped for. Dare I ask for a 1.1 timeline? We are very interested in DirectoryStorage but I know my team won't sign off on running our zodb off of some arbitrary CVS checkout, it'll have to be a stable release. We might go ahead with 1.0 in the meantime since it addresses a number of our annoyances with FileStorage, and our storage is only growing and growing.... -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's SUBORDINATE POLYTHEI-BUTTER CHURN! (random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)