|
|
Posted by fred-bloggs on 02/22/06 14:12
anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in
news:461k2jF8tjb2U1@individual.net:
> fred-bloggs wrote:
>> anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in news:45v2e7F8mnkoU1
>> @individual.net:
>>
>>
>>>fred-bloggs wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's incorrect. Primaries are more necessay than ever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can I ask on what you base that assertion?
>>>(not that I disagree necessarily).
>>
>>
>> I used to have 4 secondaries, last time I looked it was 12.
>>
> so... the density of your data store is improved,
Increased load on the primary, resulting in fewer search results and less
complete browses.
> the search horizon
> of all peers within range of your primary has improved.
I believe the search horizon is a *fixed* number of primaries, it has
nothing to do with the number of secondaries.
> The number of
> fake files experienced by those other peers might now be reduced...
Only in that total number of search results is decreased.
>
> What's the problem?
Decreased load balancing, fault-resilience, robustness, and scalability.
Ideally there should be NO secondaries.
--
fred
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|