Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:30:02 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> To: Lanny Baron <lnb@FreeBSDsystems.COM> Cc: Olaf Hoyer <ohoyer@ohoyer.de> Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system VS one processor system Message-ID: <405A855A.6000807@pacific.net.sg> In-Reply-To: <1079673332.33813.79.camel@panda> References: <20040318232348.BE86443D2D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20040319013145.P44321@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> <405A6537.2070607@pacific.net.sg> <1079670664.33813.72.camel@panda> <405A7B25.8040306@pacific.net.sg> <1079673332.33813.79.camel@panda>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Lanny Baron wrote: > Hi Erich, > Yes you are right. A Server Board cannot be changed with the expectation > that the system to still run. > > But as I said, with real redundancy, as some of our customers do have, > such that if Server 1 died, Server 2 picks up immediately. The cost of > which, is substantially less than that of systems such as you imply. > The price is real high but it is still the only way to make sure that the interruption is minimal and the data loss is also minimal. It depends very much on the application. Banks are a typical application for systems like this. Who would like that the credited amount got lost just because the server failed in that moment of time? They have the money, they can afford it. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?405A855A.6000807>