From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 8 07:08:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5515216A4CE for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mailbox.co.uk (smtp.mailbox.co.uk [195.82.125.32]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9CA43D2D for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:08:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wayne@penguinpowered.org) Received: from [212.18.250.170] (helo=marvin.penguinpowered.org) by smtp.mailbox.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1Aeblw-00030b-00; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:08:32 +0000 Received: by marvin.penguinpowered.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5F2DD56465; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:09:55 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:09:55 +0000 From: Wayne Pascoe To: lists@natserv.com Message-ID: <20040108150955.GC9720@marvin.penguinpowered.org> References: <20040107173058.GB6217@marvin.penguinpowered.org> <20040107133431.E52808@zoraida.natserv.net> <20040107185650.GA6981@marvin.penguinpowered.org> <20040108094446.B61355@zoraida.natserv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040108094446.B61355@zoraida.natserv.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: wayne@penguinpowered.org X-System: FreeBSD i386 with kernel 5.1-RELEASE-p10 cc: Wayne Pascoe cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hardware requirements for firewall X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:08:41 -0000 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!