![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Daniel Phillips wrote: >> Also, please note that the problem here is not related to the number of >> nines of availability. This number only counts the ratio between uptime >> and downtime. We're more facing a problem of MTBF, where the consequences >> of a failure are hard to predict. >> > > That is why I keep recommending that a ramback setup be replicated or > mirrored, which people in this thread keep glossing over. When > replicated or mirrored, you still get the microsecond-level transaction > times, and you get the safety too. Do you mean it should be replicated with a second ramback? That would be pretty pointless, since all failure modes would affect both. It's not like one ramback will survive a crash when the other doesn't. | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-16 06:45 [W:10.957 / U:0.080 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||