--Friday, May 21, 2004 01:23:52 +1000 Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
My idea was to have a
cron job watch the FTP logs to launch rsync. That way rsync would only try
to copy the files that were most recently updated. There would be a daily
rsync cron job to cover for any problems
--Friday, May 21, 2004 01:23:52 +1000 Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
My idea was to have a
cron job watch the FTP logs to launch rsync. That way rsync would only try
to copy the files that were most recently updated. There would be a daily
rsync cron job to cover for any problems
On May 20, 2004, at 9:27 AM, David Wilk wrote:
Now, here's the other question. Now that the web cluster can scale the
static content ad infinitum, what about the dynamic content? What can
be done with Mysql to load balance? currently they do what everyone
does with two stand-alone Mysql servers
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:48:31PM -0600, David Wilk wrote:
...
The cluster is comprised of a load-balancer, several web servers
connected to a redundant pair of NFS servers and a redundant pair of
MySQL servers. The current bottle-neck is, of course, the NFS servers.
However, the entire
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:43:35AM -0400 or thereabouts, John Keimel wrote:
Personally, I can't see the sense in replacing a set of NFS servers with
individual disks. While you might save money going with local disks in
the short run your maintenance costs (moreso the time cost than dollar
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:48, David Wilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cluster is comprised of a load-balancer, several web servers
connected to a redundant pair of NFS servers and a redundant pair of
MySQL servers. The current bottle-neck is, of course, the NFS servers.
However, the entire thing
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:23:52AM +1000 or thereabouts, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:48, David Wilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cluster is comprised of a load-balancer, several web servers
connected to a redundant pair of NFS servers and a redundant pair of
MySQL servers.
On May 20, 2004, at 9:27 AM, David Wilk wrote:
Now, here's the other question. Now that the web cluster can scale the
static content ad infinitum, what about the dynamic content? What can
be done with Mysql to load balance? currently they do what everyone
does with two stand-alone Mysql servers
Howdy all,
I am thinking about how to increase the capacity of a web cluster and
was wondering if anyone out there had any experience with this type of
thing.
The cluster is comprised of a load-balancer, several web servers
connected to a redundant pair of NFS servers and a redundant pair of
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:48:31PM -0600, David Wilk wrote:
...
The cluster is comprised of a load-balancer, several web servers
connected to a redundant pair of NFS servers and a redundant pair of
MySQL servers. The current bottle-neck is, of course, the NFS servers.
However, the entire
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:43:35AM -0400 or thereabouts, John Keimel wrote:
Personally, I can't see the sense in replacing a set of NFS servers with
individual disks. While you might save money going with local disks in
the short run your maintenance costs (moreso the time cost than dollar
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:23:52AM +1000 or thereabouts, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:48, David Wilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cluster is comprised of a load-balancer, several web servers
connected to a redundant pair of NFS servers and a redundant pair of
MySQL servers.
Howdy all,
I am thinking about how to increase the capacity of a web cluster and
was wondering if anyone out there had any experience with this type of
thing.
The cluster is comprised of a load-balancer, several web servers
connected to a redundant pair of NFS servers and a redundant pair of
13 matches
Mail list logo
