On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 08:34 -0700, Hassan Schroeder wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Christopher Schultz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I suppose it depends on the frequency of image uploads. 100 images a day > > wouldn't be too bad. 100 images per minute would seriously suck. > > True, I was envisioning a relatively low-frequency operation, for > no particular good reason :-) > > >> Um, single point of failure? :-) > > > > NFS /can/ be done robustly. > > OK, I haven't encountered an NFS cluster in the wild, but apparently > they exist. So, yes, that'd be a solution, and would probably scale > better than using rsync. >
NFS was one of my firsts shots (after rsync). Of course it should use ip-sec to make it more secure, the problem with that option is that I don't really know yet how much will consume the image load to decide to set it in a dedicated server (to look to the future) or add it to a tomcat server and make the load balance hit that server less than the other one. The problem here is the single point of failure, but supposing it's just an nfs with a bunch of images, it won't take too much to restore another server with the same data. Thanks for your help Hassan, may be nfs would be ok if I can securize it enough. Cheers Martín --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
