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>