Joe Touch wrote:
>
> It seems like there are a few dimensions in which caching and replication
> differ:
>
> Caching Replication
>
> what is copied server output server source
> (as Micah observed, though
> I would apply it to all replication,
> not just mirroring)
>
> who initiates it client server
> (unless push-
> cached, which
> blurs the line)
>
> how permanent is it temporary permanent
> (managed by the server,
> flushed or updated via overwrites
> by the server)
i think it's a good start summing up our intuitions so far.
however for each of these definitions it would be relatively easy to
find a counterexample. it might be premature to consider these now,
but i'm sure we could give examples of mechanisms that copy server
output but can hardly be called caching, are initiated by server,
but are still considered to be caches etc.
>
> The difference between a mirror and a replica, IMO, is that
>
> a mirror is a copy of an entire server
> a replicate is a copy of one of the files on a server
but then we run into problem of defining what is an 'entire server' ?
e.g. is CPAN mirror a mirror or replica then ?
or I'm sure you remember 'The Louvre' of Nicolas Pioch,
was it mirrored or replicated ?
--w
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST