On 4/13/05, Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote: 

> In all seriousness: SqueakSource is an extremely important resource, but
> right now too unreliable for regular use - if the proxy isn't down, then
> the server itself is overloaded or otherwise unavailable.


<snip /> 

This probably means that SqueakSource - at least the MC part - needs to be
> replicatable. Something with my P2P code does mostly automagically. The
> end result could be that www.squeaksource.com<http://www.squeaksource.com>points to a list of A
> records, each with a SqueakSource instance. DNS round-robin will take care
> of load balancing, the P2P networking code beneath each SqueakSource
> instance would make sure that what you upload in anyone instance would be
> shortly available somewhere else.
> 
> Could that be a workable setup?


I'd be for it. For the record, I think the only contibution I have here is I 
own the DNS and A records for
www.squeaksource.com<http://www.squeaksource.com>.
I'd be happy to either enter additional A records to other squeak sources 
should the P2P networking be baked into SqueakSource.

Also, I also run my own SqueakSource, mostly because I keep my code backed 
up and not primarily because kilana.unibe.ch <http://kilana.unibe.ch> or my 
dang proxy keeps going on the fritz. I believe the public SqueakSource web 
site says you are on your own to ensure you have backups, so putting all my 
eggs in one basket doesn't sound too appealing to me. Having multiple 
replicas of SqueakSource could alleviate that concern a bit if I understood 
the architecture (i.e. some replication technologies have been know to 
correctly replicate mass deletions too).

Regards,

John

-- 
If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere. 
-- Frank A. Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20050413/e9e0cd36/attachment.htm