4 ms·
Sure, but actually committing the status every few minutes (seconds?) to a blockchain would use so much resources it's be... quite impolite. It'd be easier, an
by cguess 5y ago
Sure, but actually committing the status every few minutes (seconds?) to a blockchain would use so much resources it's be... quite impolite.
It'd be easier, and cheaper eventually, to have it on a properly sharded database, maybe with a few different DNS and server front ends.
- tnzm 5y ago>committing the status every few minutes (seconds?) to a blockchain Only if the status actually changes every few minutes.
- supermatt 5y agoI’d expect this would need to be like a heartbeat / dead mans switch, I.e keep flagging as up, and when you stop flagging, it’s considered down. Otherwise you would need a different status monitor to monitor the status agent…
- Karunamon 5y agoWhich is fine. Having a standardized .status domain for the pages, even if manually updated, is a big upgrade from the hodgepodge of what's out there now.