On Thu, 23 May 2002, Phil Tomson wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205221545200.23632-100000 / bigfun.whirlycott.com>,
> Pat Eyler  <pate / eylerfamily.org> wrote:
> >
> >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?
>

I don't have any good ideas yet, but will think about it for a while.  I'm
guessing that we'll want to consider something along the lines of dns
updates.

>
>
> >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.

I agree, I was just trying to point out that making the rubycookbook a
part of rubygarden might not be the way to go.  Having a few hosts sharing
a few sites sounds like the winning combination to me.

-pate

>
> Phil
>