In data Wednesday 29 April 2009 01:29:40, Ronald Bradford ha scritto: : > Just to throw some more open thoughts into the config discussion. > > Why should a config file be restricted to one server. If we do want to > move toward a cloud like deployment, being for example to pull one config > file from a central location to support multiple servers may be seen as an > advantage, if it can handle small variants (I use the referenced thread > example skip-slave-start, not an ideal one) > > Is there merit in enabling config files to have the standard configuration > and then also server-centric configuration settings by a given name. > > That said, can we replace server-id (which is old replication) with a > better server-identifier Something obviously unique within your topology, > but a description, not a number.
kioslaves from kde are a good example of how it should be managed central configuration files: the server should see files and only files, filtered by an abstraction layer that can access everithing from local file to plan9 resources, also trasformation from say xml to winini should be done the same way. Then remember to give each config file a strict order and priority, MySQL messed up with that a pair of times and was a sad time.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
