take on future events

[David Collier-Brown]

Greg Dickie wrote:
> > I was operating under the assumption that we'd be replicating for stability,
> > not for load distribution.  In that case only one server would be updating
> > at a given time.

	We could look at it in two ways:
	1) hot fail-over, done with a private replication
	   scheme between servers, and
	2) multiple wins servers, which would need incremental
	  replication

	The former is easy: file transfer would suffice.
	The latter needs a protocol designbed.

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | and astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
Work: (905) 477-0437 Home: (416) 223-8968 Email: davecb at canada.sun.com