> Bremford, Mike wrote:
> >
> > With regard to DB mirroring
> >
> > May I recommend that the slaves request the updates, rather than the master
> > sending them out unasked for. This would allow the "network" of slaves to be
> > expanded easily without the administrator having to maintain the list. Each
> > slave could have a "last updated" date set, and the CD player clients could
> > skip servers that have fallen into disuse. Or is this too tricky? (I had a
> > bad experience with manually sending out updates of mirrored pages once -
> > never again :-)
>
> Good point. I hadn't thought it thru :-)
>
> The client knows when the last update was (or if it lost an update!).
i think the best way to do it is to let the slaves ask if there has been
an update. If the answer is positive, then update it. But then again
that's maybe too detailedc right now :-)
>
> Note that there *will* be some maintenance on the master for managing
> the network of slaves.
is quite simple. As soon as the master receives a slave request, the
master will check if the slave is already in it's slave list. if not, then
add it.
> The lyrics thing is becoming kind of a pit of a discussion. We probably
> ought to table it (no pun intended :-)
Breyten