Howard Chu writes: >Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >> Unless you have different servers for different purposes, which share >> _some_ data - e.g. a database with user/group info. Though then it may >> be about time to give up the idea of replicating config. It might only >> be feasible to replicate the config of the shared database anyway. > > Indeed. Most of the cases you're talking about are cases where it makes no > sense to talk about shared config.
I disagree with that, the configs can still be mostly identical. However: > Let's acknowledge that those cases exist, and are not the cases of > interest here, and ignore them. If you want to have distinct settings > on each server, then go manage them distinctly; there's nothing else > to talk about there. Absolutely. In particular since I'm not volunteering to implement it. BTW, I can think of one other use of replicated config: Support. The site admin could do at least some config updates without having to log in on each server host. Your suffixmassage suggestion should be perfect for that. -- Hallvard
