<quote who="Ross Golder"> > If someone can come up with a), I'll be happy to make sure they get all > the help and encouragement they need to carry it out in part b) :)
I'll start looking at it in more detail in two weeks, when I get back from the states. > I guess for d) at the very least we ought to have a slave MX server > somewhere. Secondary MXes that are not in our control are undesireable, but given the machines we already have, we can load-balance and failover among them directly. > Ah, that reminds me. Who were those big name companies asking for our > hardware wishlist again? I thought of 'network monitoring server' (so > Toni and I could set up NAGIOS etc). Worthy. > We could add 'slave NS/MX server' to that list. These really don't require another machine. > It'd be nice if those big name companies could also host a couple of these > servers too. Having resources outside of RedHat's Phoenix colo would give > us improved redundancy/flexibility should any part of the internet lose > connectivity to the Phoenix network. Perhaps even have them hosted outside > the US completely (in Europe/Australia)? Strongly agree (a bugbear of mine from way back). - Jeff -- GNOME Summit 2005: October 8th-10th http://live.gnome.org/Boston2005 "Are you XFire's crazy girlfriend? And if so, shine on you crazy diamond!" - Paul Cameron _______________________________________________ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
