[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Failover in copy...
From: |
Chip Seraphine |
Subject: |
Re: Failover in copy... |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:34:20 -0500 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.4 |
On Thursday 16 September 2004 11:59, Christian Pearce wrote:
> I know I talked about this before. But isn't this just the inverse of
> define? If the copy failed the define class wouldn't be set and the
> failover would. If the copy was successful just the opposite. Isn't
> this redundant? All you have to do is ! the class and you have the
> other condition. Is there something about failover that I am missing?
Order of operations. Does "!copygood" mean that the copy in question has not
run yet, or that it failed?
> I think it might be of interest to have it try a second IP address. So
> the server would take comma separated values.
That would be extremely, massively cool. I would recommend following the
iterator conventions rather than introducing a new one, however.
--
Chip Seraphine
Unix Administrator
TradeLink, LLC
312-264-2048
chip@trdlnk.com