home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Tim Berners-Lee said:
- >But it seems feasable. Maybe we can try it out with some non top-level
- >domain
- >and when it works register a www.net or maybe just a .www. :-)
-
- Trying it out is no problem; there are plenty of friendly DNS admins around
- (including me ...). In the longer term it would have to be www.net rather
- than just .www.
-
- >Now, as you point out, we need some mirroring software. (Ed, you know
- >of any?)
-
- Mirroring is a difficult problem, eg should the secondaries poll the
- primary to pick up new copies, or should the primary push changes out
- to the secondaries ? Should you tranfser entire copies of a server's data
- (needed when bringing up a new secondary) or should you just transfer
- deltas ?
-
- For mirroring to work well it needs to be part of the protocol. Maybe
- something for HTTP3 .... ?
-
- >Rather than just retry another IP address on error on the first, which would
- >be slow because of the long tcp timeout, a better method would be, the first
- >time a client encounters a given server with >1 IP address, to ping
- >all of them
- >wait for any reply packet and take the winner, then connect to that. Solves
- >the traffic reduction and the reliability in one swell foop.
-
- One way to do this is to create a number of sockets, one per address,
- mark them all as non-blocking, connect() to each of the addresses and
- then select(), ie. send out parallel connection requests and take the first
- (even if all connections get established before we process the select(),
- that is only three packets per connection).
-
- This method solves the problem of finding the nearest server, and also
- the problem of asynch connects mentioned earlier re: midas: just set a
- suitable timeout on the select call.
-
- Kevin
-
-