On Wednesday 20 September 2006 02:48, Ariz Jacinto wrote: > On 9/8/06, JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > these boxes sits behind a load balancer... communication is via private > > lan.... and replication is real-time.. > > your job would be much easier if you already have access to > a "fault-tolerant / redundant" and very fast storage system that > can be moubted by the 3 machines (hint). > im planning to place all data on each direct attached SCSI disk, 10K rpm, 73G, RAID1 config. via /1000 network.
> rsync can do the task BUT it's slow when you're going to replicate > directories with deep structure and of TeraByte-size. Rsync would > take hours in determining the files to transfer _by_default_, that is > if you're going to let it be handled by a single process only (hint: > fix it by a script BUT there will be performance hit on your DiskIO > and network). > > > if i may ask a few more questions, which among those 3 servers > are you planning to initiate those file updates, on 1 server only > (single master) or on any of those servers at any given moment > (multi-master)? what's the peak value of file changes (bytes per > sec) are you expecting? what are the specs of your server? > (SATA / SCSI? rpm? Disk IO transfer speed? network file transfer > speed? using dual or quad port cards?, etc.) > either of the servers should work... it will configured to be multi-master.. if server 1 goes down.. it shouldnt matter since the other 2 are still active and defintely uploads will be done on either server2 or server3. thanks, > Mailing-List _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
