Hi Hoss, Yes I know that, but I want to have a proper dummy backup (something that could be kept in a very controlled environment). I thought about using this approach (a slave just for this purpose), but if I'm using it just as a backup node there is no reason I don't use a proper backup structure (as I have all needed infra-structure in place for that). It's just an extra redundancy level as I'm going to have a Master/Slaves structure and the index is replicated amongst them anyway.
Yes, I got it. I have implemented ways to re-index stuff in an incremental way so I can just re-index a slice of my content (based on dates or id's) which should be enough to keep my index up-to-date quickly after a possible disaster. Thank you for your considerations, Daniel On 8/10/07 18:29, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > : I'm setting up a backup task to keep a copy of my master index, just to > : avoid having to re-build my index from scratch. And other important issue is > > every slave is a backup of the master, so you don't usually need a > seperate backup mechanism. > > re-building hte index is more about peace of mind when asking "why did it > crash? what did/didn't get writen the index before it crashed?" > > > > > -Hoss > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
