On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:25 , Steven Jenkins wrote:
I sort of understand this need, but I suggest that it's caused by poor namespace management, and that the solution should be to improve that rather than try to keep your RWs and ROs out of sync with each other.
I think you're misunderstanding; the RO vs RW is only one component of such a scheme. (Except in the case of simple htdocs staging.)
In our environment, software collections are arranged into releases; the vast majority of machines subscribe to the omega release, test machines may subscribe to alpha / beta / gamma / various custom/ testing release snapshots (and fall back to omega if those don't exist), development machines may subscribe to the RW volume instead of the RO to get the most up to date code instead of a snapshot. (Omega fallback still works here, as the RW omega release should always match the RO except (a) when it's a brand new package, so there is no RO (b) in the middle of an omega release update, which is typically very short because all you're doing is moving symlinks around.)
-- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
