|
> -----Original Message-----
>
> I just ran across an article
> (http://www.byte.com/documents/s=2289/byt1010012679751/0107_moshe.html)
> describing InterMezzo(http://www.inter-mezzo.org/). It is like
> using rsync
> in both directions but it is running constantly- no crons. Also, it
> supports disconnections from the network. When a client realizes that the
> network is available after an outage, checks for and receives any updates
> automatically.
>
> I am going to be deploying an LVS soon and this looks like it could be a
> solution to keeping content in sync on an LVS.
>
> Dave Augustus
I'm at the moment testing InterMezzo.
I also tested Coda, but InterMezzo seems a lot better for webservers,
- Coda has a complex authentication system, you have to clog in first
on an auth2 server to get write permissions. If you have a closed network
behind an LVS/firewall this is a useless feature
- InterMezzo is easier to setup, it is not as complicated as Coda, and
does has a lot less features at the moment.
- InterMezzo works completly from a local cachefile, thus you can even set
the groupid on files (which i couldnt do on Coda).
So at the moment im using InterMezzo and test it for stability, at the
moment
is is running ~3 days without a crash, with 24 files stored on it which are
updating every 5 mins.
So if you ask me what has the better features for a (web)server cluster, I
would
say InterMezzo :-)
Kees Hoekzema
|
