On 16/09/14 12:32, Terry Burton wrote:
> 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.
Personally I dislike multi-master as a fundamental concept. It seems
nice, right up until you have to manually reconcile differences...
I'll be interested to hear how it goes for you.
>
>> 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.
Yes, we had that. Our offsite webserver is elsewhere in the country in
case of some unspecified disaster that destroys the entire of London.
Because obviously keeping the website online in that situation is of
critical importance....
|