Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 08:14:46 -1001 From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>, jeff@mercury.jorsm.com (Jeff.Lynch-JORSM.Internet) Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RAID Controller Product Message-ID: <199610031815.IAA13726@pegasus.com> In-Reply-To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> "Re: RAID Controller Product" (Oct 3, 11:26am)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
} > On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Richard Foulk wrote: } > > A quick alias addition could fix that. One box could check periodically } > > to see that another is still up, when it stops responding you take over } > > for its IP address too. } > > } > > } > > Richard } > } > This looks like the closest thing to a perfect solution. After } > human intervention on the dead machine, you just delete the } > alias on the backup news server! Not sure, but you also might } > need to modify the arp tables on all the locally connected machines } > though for a smooth transition. } } The other non-obvious downside to this is that the reason you are } doing it in the first place is so that newsreaders can connect. However } once connected they like to stay connected for a long time... and when } you bring the other machine back online, you are going to have a SECOND } service disruption. Hadn't thought of that. In that light, more reliable servers (with RAID, etc.) may be more appropriate than multiple/redundant servers (since that's where this thread started.) Richard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610031815.IAA13726>