From: Gerard Ceraso (no email)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 10:08:43 EDT
Yeah, master slave sort of thing would work nice. If the server losses
an email or two that would be no problem. Plus I can always set up an MX
record for both servers so it would be delivered no matter what. This
way if one server goes down I have the other as a backup and if server
one catches on fire and I cannot get anything back I have server two,
and noone knows the difference. Its always good to have a backup :)
Gerard
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 09:23, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Paul Dekkers wrote:
>
> > Although I think Gerard likes to see both servers active at the same
> > time, I think the (master-slave kind) synchronisation would be a nice
> > thing to start with. On the other hand, if I see what offlineimap can
> > do, I assume it must be possible with just 2 servers to synchronise
> > folders in a proper way (when keeping some history and logs on both
> > sides, of course...), am I wrong? (This looks again a bit like
> > bi-directional synchronisation as with unison, instead of master->slave
> > think as with rsync or so.)
>
> I'm not familiar with what offlineimap does, but it isn't possible to have
> two servers syncing "in unison" without some user interaction to resolve
> conflicts when they occur after a network partition.
>
> Obviously a master/slave situation is much easier to achieve.
>
> -Rob
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Rob Siemborski * Andrew Systems Group * Cyert Hall 207 * 412-268-7456
> Research Systems Programmer * /usr/contributed Gatekeeper
>
--- Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
|
|
|