[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: High-availability question

    On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:05:36 +0200, Ralf Baechle <>

    >> No. Then you'd have a single machine handle the filesystem
    >> and I don't want no single point of failure.

    > You're searching for the silver bullet which doesn't exist. I know of
    > some Omirr like ha-system in a German bank. A pair of machines for
    > reasons of availability even distributed over a city each had mirrored
    > disks, running OpenVMS.

    VMS host-based shadowing is _nice_. :)

    > The data corruption caused by a not correctly plugged in SCSI cable
    > resulted in both mirror sets being corrupted and the corrupted data
    > also being mirrored over to the other system.

    Sure --- garbage in, garbage out. You still aren't proof against an
    application failure or against writing the wrong data. That doesn't
    mean that having a redundant storage subsystem is useless: it just means
    that such redundancy is only part of the problem.

    btw, Tandem would have caught that scsi error: the existence of such
    fault tolerant systems shows that it _is_ possible to guard against
    random machine failures. You are still in trouble if the application is
    buggy, of course.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.023 / U:0.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site