From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May 22 16:14:31 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7AE16B426
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 22 May 2006 16:14:31 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Received: from groat.ugcs.caltech.edu (groat.ugcs.caltech.edu
	[131.215.176.110])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB69B43D7F
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 22 May 2006 16:14:21 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Received: by groat.ugcs.caltech.edu (Postfix, from userid 3640)
	id 653165880B; Mon, 22 May 2006 09:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:14:20 -0700
From: Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>
To: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org>
Message-ID: <20060522161420.GB28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu>
References: <4471361B.5060208@freebsd.org>
	<66DF01E1-277C-42EE-896E-1E7F4C2ABDDE@lafn.org>
	<44714F23.6000504@datalinktech.com.au>
	<2CBCDBD0-CC9F-4B9A-BC79-9F248DFE7A3F@lafn.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2CBCDBD0-CC9F-4B9A-BC79-9F248DFE7A3F@lafn.org>
Sender: jd@ugcs.caltech.edu
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, David Nugent <davidn@datalinktech.com.au>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Survey
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:14:38 -0000

>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