Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:34:21 +0100 From: "Andy" <andy@tecc.co.uk> To: "Enriko Groen" <enriko.groen@netivity.nl>, "'Tony Saign'" <tony@saignon.net>, <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Redundant setup on a budget?? Message-ID: <NDBBKOKIGKLFGGPFHCGBIEDODEAA.andy@tecc.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <510EAC2065C0D311929200A0247252622F7A7B@NETIVITY-FS>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I would suggest clustering the two machines... > Why leave a backup machine running all the time with nothing to > do while it > could reduce the load on the first server? This great till one keels over and then the other one must take the load (which you failed to monitor) then, under 2x stress you didn't account for, boom, no servers as the one on it's own dies under stress. Been there, bought the hat thanks. I use the previous method. However, once in a while I whip out the ethernet cable of the main server, if your backup's screwed you soon know, your expecting a problem remember. Good if the backup kicks in fine. If it doesn't at least at that point 2sec sfter shoving the cable back your in business and just leaving you to fix a bust backup server ;) Regards Andy, as they say PPPPPP > > A standby backup machine will most probably come up and then you discover > that it's configured badly or doesn't work and you didn't notice. > > I'm also thinking of doing this... I'm in the same kind of situation... > Have no experience yet with clustering... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NDBBKOKIGKLFGGPFHCGBIEDODEAA.andy>