Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:24:21 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> Cc: perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu, tom@sdf.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Parity Ram Message-ID: <2711.877969461@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 1997 07:55:48 EST." <199710271255.HAA02897@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In reliability - more doesn't always mean safer. > > Say, for example, I spread my database across two disks - but both > have to be running for the software to gain access. Then, I've just > doubled the probability of failure; not halved it. I think he meant "more" in terms of redundancy, not distribution. Sure, if I split a database into 5000 chunks and put each chunk onto a distinct node on my network then I've made things pretty fragile in the process, but if each of those 5000 chunks is *identical* and any one of the 5000 notes can provide it to a client, then I've created something far more resistant to failure. Let's not confuse this situation by comparing apples and oranges. :) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2711.877969461>