Howard Chu writes:
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Unless you have different servers for different purposes, which share
> _some_ data - e.g. a database with user/group info. Though then it may
> be about time to give up the idea of replicating config. It might only
> be feasible to replicate the config of the shared database anyway.
Indeed. Most of the cases you're talking about are cases where it makes no
sense to talk about shared config.
I disagree with that, the configs can still be mostly identical.
Let's acknowledge that those cases exist, and are not the cases
interest here, and ignore them. If you want to have distinct settings
on each server, then go manage them distinctly; there's nothing else
to talk about there.
Absolutely. In particular since I'm not volunteering to implement it.
BTW, I can think of one other use of replicated config: Support. The
site admin could do at least some config updates without having to log
in on each server host. Your suffixmassage suggestion should be perfect