[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Setting up a "cluster" of monotone servers
From: |
Václav Haisman |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Setting up a "cluster" of monotone servers |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:18:43 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) |
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a while, I've been thinking about what would be required to have
> more than one server respond as if they were one. One of the goals
> with this effort is to be able to have a monotone host name (such as
> mtn.lp.se) have more than one A record (in other words, point at more
> than one server) and work seemlessly.
>
> The problem is really two-fold:
>
> 1. Keys, permissions and hooks. These need to be the same on all
> servers, or there will be trouble, either with having users
> suddenly be presented with a different server key, and monotone
> putting up big warnings, or with netsync rights varrying depending
> in which server you happen to hit, or other variations depending
> on the hooks.
> For now, such things can be solved by having a separate set of
> servers for administrative data, with very tight trust settings.
> It's quite possible (I don't know yet) that the future policy
> branches could solve the problem more or less automagically.
>
> 2. Propagation of changes. The way things look right now,
> propagating changes could easily be done by having all servers
> keep a mirror of the database and sync all changes to all the
> other servers (or in whatever topology you desire). The trouble
> with this is, of course, latency. The users may or may not
> experience that the changes they just pushed aren't quite there,
> that they need to push more than once if they're impatient, and so
> on.
> A different solution could be to make it possible for a server to
> initiate a sync with another server, and have that done directly
> after there's been anything happening that changes the contents of
> the database. This would probably just need a little bit of
> hackery of the netsync code to have an appropriate trigger point
> that starts the netsync, and a hook that returns a list of other
> servers to communicate with.
>
> Thoughts? Ideas? Criticism? Is this at all possible?
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
This looks like a bad approach to solve the problem. Unless I am
mistaken, this is all because monotone locks the whole DB whenever
anybody accesses it. Well, would it not make more sense to somehow lift
this restriction instead?
--
wilx
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Monotone-devel] Setting up a "cluster" of monotone servers, Howard Spindel, 2007/01/29
Re: [Monotone-devel] Setting up a "cluster" of monotone servers, Timothy Brownawell, 2007/01/29