Re: [Handle-info] handle server asymmetrical mirroring question

[Larry Lannom <llannom@cnri.reston.va.us>]

Hi,

Each handle server (software, not hardware) is either a primary or  
secondary, so you can't home the prefixes in the way you first  
propose below. But there is absolutely no reason not to run multiple  
servers on the same box, as you suggest later. We do that at CNRI on  
a regular basis with no difficulties. In the simple case of two  
institutes, each of the two handle services would consist of two  
service sites, one primary and one secondary. Each institute would  
host their own primary site and the other's secondary site. Sounds  
like a good idea to me.

The group that already does this on a large scale is the  
International DOI Foundation. In addition to collaborating on policy,  
they also have a shared technical infrastructure, with multiple  
primary and secondary handle sites located in different network  
locations.

Larry

On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Eric Auer wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> we would like to do create a somehow interesting
> handle server "team"... Does anybody have experience
> with a setup similar to what we have in mind?
>
>
> The idea: Two institutes, both with their own
> handle prefix and handle server, could mirror
> the handle data of the respective other institute,
> using their already existing servers.
>
> That way, both institutes get better failsafe
> services while still only needing 1 server each.
>
>
> I assume we can list the IPs of both servers in
> the resolver entries for both prefixes on your
> toplevel server for that, and tell our servers
> that they both have both prefixes homed to them?
>
> Or should we better run separate services on
> separate ports or even separate IP addresses,
> which would require a total of up to 4 servers?
>
>
> A second issue with the suggested setup is that
> it would be nice to have a way to communicate and
> mirror the database contents of each other in a
> secure and automated way. I think the options
> included 1. telling several servers to form a
> server farm automagically and 2. using the handle
> protocol to send change requests to the servers
> in the first place.
>
> The 2nd option would be bad as we should stick
> with our current method of writing updates
> directly to our SQL databases for performance
> reasons. The 1st option sounds better, but how
> would it interact with the "evil" plans to share
> two prefixes asymmetrically (!) between 2 servers.
>
>
> Any suggestions about this are welcome :-).
>
> Thanks, Eric
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGDTuy99dkROyhRRsRAlW2AJ9SdNVaW2KO71pqswkzg8cqi9qlsACfXsMT
> QEqePNQvPCdUA6IcVH/cmts=
> =Q0Hc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Handle-Info mailing list
> Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
> http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info


_______________________________________________
Handle-Info mailing list
Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info