Re: .d.o machines which are down (Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <email@example.com> writes:
> > The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> > have two to replace it within a day or two.
> > The point being, there's no reason to have two seperate machines when one
> > can do the job. As long as it keeps up, then there should be no cause for
> > concern.
> If you have one machine, and it dies, and it takes you a day or two to
> replace it, then it cannot "do the job". If you can guarantee that it
> never dies (somehow), then maybe it could.
Ok, I can guarantee that it never dies. The hardrives are raid 5
configuration, and the power supplies are redundant, and if any of the
three cpu/mem boards goes bad, I can just remove it and let the other two
(4x cpu's and 4gigs ram) run. Then there's also two 10/100mbit ethernet
It wont die all together, it's an enterprise class system. It's meant to
keep going, even if it has to limp to do so. Even with 1 cpu/mem board, it
still would have 2 cpu's and 2gigs of ram.
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/