On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 12:20:29PM -0800, Tory M Blue wrote:

> This get's me to the 1 to 1 configuration that  Brad also mentioned.
> Although we know we can do 1 to many, it doesnt look like many to 1 is
> appropriate for subscribe sets.

Right, what Brad said was right: you need to distinguish
_communication_ path and _active data_ paths.  There's nothing wrong
with the nodes communicating with one another, but there's something
wrong with the idea that you can get the same data from two places at
the same time.

> Just trying to make this as fault tolerant but efficient as I can..
> Obviously being able to lose a provider without manual intervention
> would be ideal,but don't see that quite yet :)

It's not possible.  If you lose a node, and want to switch away from
it, you need to issue a FAILOVER command.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca