From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 21 07:13:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BED2106564A for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:13:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (unknown [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5488FC0C for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id q1L7D5YT047043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:13:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.14.2/Submit) with UUCP id q1L7D51F047042; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:13:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from fbsd81 ([192.168.200.81]) by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA16997; Mon, 20 Feb 12 23:06:22 PST Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:05:09 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: dieterbsd@engineer.com Message-Id: <4f43a495.h+USsCyXrPm0omOx%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20120220185822.300970@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <20120220185822.300970@gmx.com> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OS support for fault tolerance X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:13:18 -0000 "Dieter BSD" wrote: > The problem then is how to feed both machines the same inputs, and > compare the outputs. ??Do we need a third machine to supervise? > Can we have each machine keep an eye on the other, avoiding the > need for a third machine? A pair would work as long as the only failures are "obvious" (e.g. crashes). If they simply disagree as to the result, how would we determine which one was right? > Which then leads to the issue of how to avoid problems when *it* > breaks. For some reason, this reminds me of a Dr. Seuss story: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/49519038