On 16 September 2014 11:27, Phil Mayers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 16/09/14 09:53, Tony Finch wrote:
>> We don't have a specific plan, but my approach would roughly be to have an
>
> This is *exactly* what we have. Stealth slave, itself slaved by our
> secondary (Cambridge!)
We are experimenting with running our visible offsite slaves as
multi-master so that under normal circumstances these have no
dependence upon the third-party hosted service.
> For my money, any disaster which damaged the entire of JANET so badly that
> this arrangement failed would be a disaster in which IP connectivity would
> be the least of my concerns ;o)
My thoughts too, however I have been "challenged" out of this.
|