|
|
I've heard JasonTik mention wanting to do that before, but it would be a lot of work. Which means we need someone with lots of time to do it =P
I'm not a fan of a network relying on a hub, but...isn't the whole hub-leaf thing in RFC-1459? |
|
|
|
to be honest, RFC is really irrelevant for server-to-server stuff, but most of the time, meshed linking has no advantage, if you have well placed hubs on stable connections, it won't be an issue |
|
|
|
I'm gonna have to go with djGrr on this one, and even go out on a limb to say that it'd be a disadvantage in most situations because of the extra CPU time that would be required to keep the mesh synchronized without duplicating data, etc. |
|
|
djGrrr
2007-04-08 12:39
reporter
~0013356
Last edited: 2007-04-08 12:44
|
there is one case where meshed linking could be useful.
i don't like the idea of leafs connecting to other leafs, but i wouldn't mind seeing leafs linking to multiple hubs, that way if a single hub goes down, all the leafs still stay linked without ever splitting, but you don't need anything complicated like using different data paths to talk directly to the hub, the best way to do it (imo) would be to have prioritizing links, where it would always use a specific link to talk to other servers, but would fall back to others if it should fail
|
|
|
stskeeps
2007-04-18 05:42
reporter
~0013510
Last edited: 2007-04-18 05:43
|
There is maybe just better need for better link handling and "intelligent" linking, maybe detecting problems before they happen, etc.? oh, and handover (ie, move a link without a split), is technically possible.
|
|
|
|
not on TODO |
|
