From owner-freebsd-isp  Sun Apr  1 11:46:59 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.49])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E78237B71B
	for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Sun,  1 Apr 2001 11:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from tom@sdf.com)
Received: from tom (helo=localhost)
	by misery.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 14jmoo-0000Kw-00; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:43:18 -0700
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
To: Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk>
Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Mirrorred webservers: Updating, logging.
In-Reply-To: <01d501c0ba1f$23cc06a0$6405a8c0@neland.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10103311241020.17936-100000@misery.sdf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Leif Neland wrote:

> That still leaves that NFS-server as the single point of failure. So
> that is no option.

  Not necessarily.  People commonly use NetApp filers in this case.  And
clustering is a standard NetApp feature.  Without clustering, NetApp
claims 99.9% availability.  With clustering, 99.99%.

  NetApp has a lot of integrity and availability checks.  It is the only
system I've seen that that does RAID scrubbing.

> I discovered some smart guy had set our secondary nameserver to have
> its files nfs-mounted from the primary. So much for redundancy...
> 
> Leif


Tom


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message