From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 9 06:43:45 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA25239 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 06:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bdd.net (bdd.net [207.61.119.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA25234 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 06:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (james@localhost) by bdd.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA05570; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:42:07 -0400 (EDT) From: James FitzGibbon To: Craig Shrimpton cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Redundancy in FBSD web server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Craig Shrimpton wrote: > First of all, using Intel based equipment and the Internet as we know > it, "cannot ever be down" is not a possibility. Unless you are prepared > to use a system like a Stratus and co-locate the machine in a telco-grade > facility complete with generators, I wouldn't promiss "NEVER." Understood. I'm never going to promise them never, just an improved situation over one server that can leave them stranded. > BTW: Considering most people connect to web servers via flaky modem > dialups, it's kinda pointless to build a excessively high availability > system for general public use. Now if the client is Fidelity Investments, > well they'll spend millions just to keep Lotus Notes running! They've got the excess of money and a lack of common sense. If they want me to build two or threee boxes so that they can feel better at night, all the better for both of us. 8-) -- j. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | James FitzGibbon james@nexis.net | | Integrator, The Nexis Group Voice/Fax : 416 410-0100 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------