Hi,
Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have redundancy then the next enhancement is
going to be to teach murder about it so that
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Actually what I was really asking, is are people looking for an
active-active config and an active-passive config?
I'm not sure that IMAP is ameniable to active-active: the prevalence of
UIDs in the protocol means that it would be very hard to resolve the
David Carter wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Actually what I was really asking, is are people looking for an
active-active config and an active-passive config?
I'm not sure that IMAP is ameniable to active-active: the prevalence of
UIDs in the protocol means that it would be ver
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
I'm not sure that IMAP is ameniable to active-active: the prevalence of
UIDs in the protocol means that it would be very hard to resolve the
inconsistencies that would occur if a pair of machines ever lost touch.
Right, I was assuming that active-passive
