Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:14:20 -0700 From: Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu> To: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, David Nugent <davidn@datalinktech.com.au> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Survey Message-ID: <20060522161420.GB28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <2CBCDBD0-CC9F-4B9A-BC79-9F248DFE7A3F@lafn.org> References: <4471361B.5060208@freebsd.org> <66DF01E1-277C-42EE-896E-1E7F4C2ABDDE@lafn.org> <44714F23.6000504@datalinktech.com.au> <2CBCDBD0-CC9F-4B9A-BC79-9F248DFE7A3F@lafn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org>, Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:48:51PM -0700: > Failover sounds good in theory but has significant issues in practice > that make it sometimes worse than the alternative. Take mail > spools. If you failover, mail the user saw before has disappeared. > Then when you "fail back" it reappears and newer messages disappear. > This is hardly unnoticable. My users do not find that at all > acceptable. Putting the mail spools on a different machine just > moves that problem to the different machine. Trying to keep multiple > spools consistent has problems also. I have watched raid system lose It's a hard problem that's why you buy a box to do it: http://www.emc-rainwall.com Rainfinity (recently bought by EMC) has patents on actual peer-reviewed data-replication algorithms. Paul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060522161420.GB28128>