> I think it's already mentioned in the original papers that one of the > main reason for 'cpu' servers is bandwidth/proximity to the file > server(s), so I in a way it has always been a misnomer.
A good point. Fossil does provide, at a price, the features of both worlds and in fact encourages being used in both roles. Until now, I had considered the Fossil host as strictly out of bounds for computation. But _that_ is obsolete thinking, my approach ought to be to enhance its resources as far as possible. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible, in this type of scenario, to identify clearly which of two otherwise distinguishable needs is not being met when the Fossil server runs out of steam. It makes more sense to cluster CPU servers around it and alleviate its computational load, if feasible, reverting to the obsolete model. I dunno, it sounds like too much of a judgement call. ++L
