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 >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part