Re: Debian + PC with multi RS... port -> n x (text dumb t
Yes, that's not a bad point, surviving machines in case of a crash...
provided the software on the 386's is designed not to necessarily send
everything immediately to the main dbase...
... but also PROVIDED there is no need to consult the main dbase,
which is much likely necessary if you have to translate a barcode into a
price + description to print + what else, or even before doing the sell
maybe just to look for something the customer wants and see if it is
available before walking some hundred meters looking for it... I think
nobody would think about replicating data on each of the 386's!
Each one of our registers has a enough information in its own private
database so that it can run without any problems. The only functionality
that is lost is automatic credit card authorization and house charge
accounts, in which case we can call the cards in manually and hand
write house charges up.
Having for sure surviving machines... would we have them in the end?
I mean, what scares me is all that ethernet running here and there, it
sounds more critical than a serial line (short or with a couple modems at
worst for the longest paths). What happens if it is the ethernet
connection that falls? (By the way, do _your_ 386's boot via ethernet or
do they have Linux on their own hard disk?) Isn't it much a weaker point
than only having to take care of one (or a few) Debian box(es) with
"strong" software? (What geometrical configuration have you ethernet
points, a bus?)
Our 386's run dos and boot from the hard drive.
The ethernet in the store is one big loop. There is a single repeater
that runs over fiber optic cable to a remote register in another building.
What ports are these devices connected to?
These all connect through device, I don't know exactly what it is,
that is itself connected to a serial port.
A. Paul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: