Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:09:55 +0000 From: Wayne Pascoe <wayne@penguinpowered.org> To: lists@natserv.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hardware requirements for firewall Message-ID: <20040108150955.GC9720@marvin.penguinpowered.org> In-Reply-To: <20040108094446.B61355@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <20040107173058.GB6217@marvin.penguinpowered.org> <20040107133431.E52808@zoraida.natserv.net> <20040107185650.GA6981@marvin.penguinpowered.org> <20040108094446.B61355@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:19AM +0000, lists@natserv.com wrote:
> Introducing a new machine has a certain level of risk. What is your
> contingency plan if the machine fails anyway?
The plan is to just remove the machine from the circuit. Instead of
having a cable to the machine from the first switch and then another
cable from the machine to the second switch, the plan is to just replace
that with a single cable between the two switches and revert to how we
are now.
> If there is so much at stake why not use the better machine then?
Budget . I have a very limited one, and if I lose this machine to the
firewall, I then have less resources available for hosting.
> Another alternative.. prepare both machines. Have the better machine ready
> to do an able to be connected/switched to at a moments notice. Put the
> slower machine on at the slowest day. Monitor it closely as traffic grows.
That's probably the way forward, yes. Thanks.
--
Wayne Pascoe
There's optimism...
and then there's stupidity!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040108150955.GC9720>