From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Jan 28 06:31:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA16500 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 06:31:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tachyon.mono.org (tachyon.mono.org [138.40.17.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA16495 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 06:31:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (david@localhost) by tachyon.mono.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA19781; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:31:28 GMT Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:31:28 +0000 (GMT) From: David Brownlee Reply-To: David Brownlee To: VaX#n8 cc: netbsd-users@NetBSD.ORG, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The wonderful world of heterogenous PC OSes In-Reply-To: <199701262138.PAA19513@linkdead.paranoia.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk It depends very much on what your needs are, whether you would leave machines on overnight, etc. If you're happy enough leaving a single machine on continually, juct locking/blanking the screen & coming back to whatever you were doing later then you have a perfect case to hang the modem off the back of that machine and make it your 'server', and to have a second machine for everything up to 'crash and burn' testing ("Oh its trashed my disks.. well I'm annoyed, but then again its not my server" :) You seem to be pretty much on track :) David/abs david@{mono.org,southern.com,mhm-internet.com} System Manager: Southern Studios Ltd, PO Box 59, London N22 1AR. Satisfied User: NetBSD, free Un*x {i386,sparc,mac68k,+more} 'www.netbsd.org'. System Admin: MHM Internet, 14 Barley Mow Passage, Chiswick, London W4 4PH. SysOP: Monochrome, Largest UK Internet BBS - 'telnet mono.org'. On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, VaX#n8 wrote: > Nontechnical: > > Hi. While getting a second system up and running today, I was contemplating > that I seem to be gathering one computer per OS. This seemed rather silly > to me, since one PC and a cool boot manager aught to do the trick, but I've > begin to find out a couple of things: > > Some of them boot in profoundly dumb ways (these are mostly commercial ones) > > Some of them don't coexist peacefully > > Unix likes to stay running; named caches names and a reboot blows the > cache away (I have an idea of sending it SIGINT and saving the /var/tmp > file away in some kind of cache for next reboot, would that work?) > Shutting down frequently leaves jobs half-finished. > There's often no good recovery. > There's not even a particularly good way to (for example) have Unix > change personalities and start PPPing into somewhere else, acting like > a different host (sendmail caches the hostname and you run into other > problems, and of course a firewalled setup gets complicated). > > People like to have a box running; that way you can debug your problem > with the help of the Internet, and if you screw up the boot process or > partitioning, your important stuff is still safe. > > Therefore, it seems logical to have a Unix "server" which has most of > the storage and media types, changes infrequently both hardware-wise > and system-sw-wise, and has a very simple setup (e.g. no need in having > 4 OSes on it). > > Is this consistent with other people's collected wisdom? > Anyone have comments or solutions I may have overlooked? >