Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

[Nicholas Roy <>]

On 8/12/16 4:00 PM, Nicholas Roy wrote:
>
> On 8/12/16 3:59 PM, Tom Scavo wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:02 PM, IJ Kim 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>>> It occurs to me that running multiple mdq metadata providers wouldn't be
>>> too hard while I'm not sure if clients can chain them or can consume a
>>> second mdq provider with something like "backingMDQUrl".  Achieving five
>>> 9s among these providers would be much feasible.
>> This is a great idea. Ops might run a single, primary HA MDQ server on
>> the CDN of choice and then look to the community to add one or more
>> backup servers to the pool. Deployers could rely on the primary alone
>> or configure a chain of primary and secondary servers, where the
>> secondary is chosen from one of the servers in the pool.
>>
>> Tom
> +1 to this being a great idea.  This might also be the way that we gain
> the diversity of CDNs we may end up thinking we need - one addition to
> the chain per CDN that ops might run.

/s/run/publish to/g
>

-- 
Nick

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature