It should not be necessary to set up replication _manually_ for each and every toolserver.
More or less... ;) John (my typos are mine!) John at Darkstar wrote: > Perhaps there could be some kind of central management of some kind. > > One thing is distribution of the open databases. It should not be > necessary to set up replication for each and every toolserver. > > Some kind of central authentication so access can be federated perhaps, > yet authorization should be enforced locally. > > But then perhaps we could use the same facility if the internal access > rules on the various servers could be more stringent, that is a > Norwegian server is for Norwegian use only - even if its located in the > cluster. More like a webhotel with server hosting for chapters. Now, > make it even more general and say virtual servers for the chapters own > use and make them off-limit for other bot operators. > > Still, note that such a server, virtual or not, has to be under complete > control of the individual chapter. Even sharing backup tapes could be > troublesome. > >> I would suggest though that we should set up some means of exchanging info >> between the different projects of that kind - to my knowledge, there'S the >> boxes >> in poland, now in norway, and wmde's toolserver. Do you know of more? What >> would >> be a good way to communicate? Yet another mailing list? > > I don't think another mailing list is necessary. If a toolserver-box is > used for something else that need higher confidentiality then it should > go on a local chapter list or something similar. > >> -- daniel > > John > > _______________________________________________ > Toolserver-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l > _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
