There is a failover option in copy. Why is no one discussing that? M
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 15:18 -0700, Tod Oace wrote: > On May 20, 2005, at 02:10, Alexander Jolk wrote: > > >> Does anyone use the server= iteration? I'm not seeing how it would > >> be used the way it currently works. Changing it to stop at the > >> first successful server seems much more useful to me. > > > > I'm not using it, but have you thought of combining this with > > SingleCopy? That might just do what you need. > > An interesting idea, but I would still have to double my quantity of > copy statements, yes? One set for the primary server and a second for > the alternate. Or am I misunderstanding? > > > As an aside, I'm actually choosing one server out of a pool of > > three using a strategy. That gives me load balancing and failover, > > but only on a longer timescale. > > I hadn't really looked at strategies: before. That doesn't seem like > what I want for failover as I want machines to try their closest > server first, but I may find some other use. Thanks! > > > -- > > Alexander Jolk / BUF Compagnie > > tel +33-1 42 68 18 28 / fax +33-1 42 68 18 29 > _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
