In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205221545200.23632-100000 / bigfun.whirlycott.com>,
Pat Eyler  <pate / eylerfamily.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Berger, Daniel wrote:
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: ptkwt / shell1.aracnet.com [mailto:ptkwt / shell1.aracnet.com]
>> > Another alternative: Would it be possible to roll
>> > rubycookbook into the
>> > rubygarden? (Dave?)  That site already exists so it would
>> > probably take
>> > less time to go that route if rubygarden is willing and able.
>> >
>> > Phil
>> >
>>
>> I second this motion.  Thoughts Dave?
>
>I've got a pair of (contradictory) thoughts.
>
>a)  It would sure be nice to get things boiled down to a couple of
>servers, then maximize uptime (distributed rubygarden anyone?)

Good point.  The recent problems with rubygarden and now rubycookbook are 
indicators that perhaps we need to consider something like this.
Redundancy would be a good thing.   We could have multiple servers 
in multiple locations.  Anybody got any ideas on how we might do 
this?

>


>b)  The more (viable, worthwhile, etc.) web sites devoted to ruby the
>greater the level of buzz around it.

Sure, but they could all live on the same set of servers.  Say we get four 
or five servers around that can host rubygarden, rubycookbook and 
ruby-lang.org.  That way we get the redundancy and multiple sites.

Phil