On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Jean-Louis Debert wrote:
> Carl St-Jacques wrote:
It is a good subject.
> > I wasn't thinking to create such discussion on serial link.... But my goal
> > is to have a replication between two linux servers. With this replication
>
> What do you mean, _servers_ ??? So, you would likely _already_ have
> ethernet
> on each, so what's the beef ???
Your takeing servers in to litteral a sense, if i deck out my box with a
load of daemons it's a server even if it has no clients.
> > i'm gona be able to respond very quickly in case of system crash or failure
> > of the primary server.
>
> Serial link (or even parallel link for that matter) is _not_ going to
> enable
> you to respond "quickly", better use ethernet in that case. Will need
> ethernet cards (if you don't already have those) but it's not all that
> expensive (say 20$ for a couple of _new_ 10Mb ones, prices go down all
> the way to zero if you can get _used_ ones).
They are two feet away, i don't understand why you would create a custom
server/client (you'll have to if your trying what i think you are) app
when the other pc is two feet away (unless there's a wall in that 2'
somewhere). I did see recently a toolkit for createing applications that
use para ports, if you can finger where i saw it [let me know =-( ] it'll
cut your workload abit maybe.
> > So right now i'm doing some tests with a parallel link and i use nfs to do
> > the replication of the most important directores and files. I'm open on
> > better ideas or suggestions... Thanks
>
> Wouldn't mirror (or rsync) be better than nfs to replicate ?
All a matter of preference, mine being rsync or nfs over ftp mirroring.
> --
> Jean-Louis Debert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 74 Annemasse France
> old Linux fan
>
