Re: Sessions and redundant servers

G'day, >> Considering NFS is stateless, why do you consider it to be a more acceptable >> solution to, say, rsync (which I personally don't like - but that's another >> matter)? > > Ok, sorry, I should have explained my reasoning. > > Afaik rsync executes periodically to synchronize files between two > stations (correct me if I am wrong), but changes are not mirrored > instantly. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > With NFS, changes are instant because they are stored on a central NFS > server, just as it happens with db storage solutions. > > That's why I said that rsync does not seem a viable solution. Sorry - I didn't mean to "come the heavy", I'm a fan of distributing file systems via NFS where it's appropriate. Your analysis of the problems with rsync is correct. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a *good* solution to the "distributed server vs. session" problem which doesn't use a replicated database. Because there's no guarantee of NFS writes being successful (or reads either, depending on where a problem may arise) and rsync must be periodically run (very fine granularity is needed for distributing session data), neither of these is really an option. Thoughts from anybody else out there? Ciao. -- -------------------------------------------------------+--------------------- Daniel Baldoni BAppSc, PGradDipCompSci | Technical Director require 'std/disclaimer.pl' | LcdS Pty. Ltd. -------------------------------------------------------+ 856B Canning Hwy Phone/FAX: +61-8-9364-8171 | Applecross Mobile: 041-888-9794 | WA 6153 URL: http://www.lcds.com.au/ | Australia -------------------------------------------------------+--------------------- "Any time there's something so ridiculous that no rational systems programmer would even consider trying it, they send for me."; paraphrased from "King Of The Murgos" by David Eddings. (I'm not good, just crazy)