[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [hobbit] Fail over?
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: RE: [hobbit] Fail over?
- From: "Hobbit User" <hobbit (at) epperson.homelinux.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
- Importance: Normal
- References: <1d23acab0710231118u74cf98eer1df154dd303ff690 (at) mail.gmail.com> <20071023200234.GD16672 (at) hswn.dk> <BAY138-W11B4D91D708229B6FDDFF59F940 (at) phx.gbl> <961092e10710240715n33d04591geeb37fa388645090 (at) mail.gmail.com> <5e59d8180710240923ofd9c98dh58091c1e21594914 (at) mail.gmail.com> <BAY138-W1427DF397E186AEA0E545D9F940 (at) phx.gbl>
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.10a-1.fc7
On Wed, October 24, 2007 13:44, T.J. Yang wrote:
>
> Isn't a proxy is another SPF (Single point of failure) ?
>
Well, yup, a single proxy would be. And there are all kinds of options
for putting up multiple proxies and setting up high availability/load
balancing amongst _those_. This whole thing has kind of transmogrified
from its beginnings as a discussion of replication and (possibly manual)
failover of a Hobbit server.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.