Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:04:51 -0700 (MST)
From:      Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
To:        nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Cc:        amcrae@cisco.com, nate@sneezy.sri.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: gated & pccard don't get along
Message-ID:  <199606132004.NAA08912@phaeton.artisoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <199606131629.KAA19062@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 13, 96 10:29:53 am

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Berny Goodheart and I were talking about this, and his
> > suggestion is to implement a registry scheme, I imagine with
> > a graph of dependancies and some IPC etc. Tandem (Berny's
> > employer) uses such a scheme to implement hot swap
> > in their high availability architecture.  Having worked on such a scheme
> > myself, I appreciate the complexity.  Unfortunately, you can't implement
> > just a *little* bit of the scheme.  If you do *any* form of
> > hot swap, you have to go the whole hog. Cisco also support
> > hot-swap, and even when it's designed in from day one, it is
> > still a significant effort to make it work.
> 
> While I agree in reality, in practice I think although we can't have
> 'the best' solution I think we can make the current glue a bit more
> useful, especially given the fact that we already pull in /etc/sysconfig
> which contains most of the 'customization' informtaion.

Uh, why the hell can't we have the *best* soloution?

Someone has to have the *best* souloution.

Why not us?

(Hyped off of "Triumph of the Nerds").


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606132004.NAA08912>