Re: Anon CVS lag (Elliot Lee) writes:

> Yup, that's what is meant by "parallel update".
> I don't think there's a real problem with people firing off parallel updates
> as long as they stagger them conscienciously. More of an issue than CPU load
> is the fact that a large number of simultaneous connections will make inetd
> thing the service is looping, and connections will start getting refused for
> a while :-)

Surely it's better for load distribution, as long as people use the
"" round robin address and ensure no more than (# of
CVS servers) are running concurrently?

Sam Vilain,         work:                home:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]