Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:46 -0500 (CDT) | From | "Edward S. Marshall" <> | Subject | Re: [ OFFTOPIC ] Re: The Linux Kernel Project Management System (INITIAL PROPOSAL) |
| |
On 27 Sep 1999, Nat Lanza wrote: > Sorry for the sarcasm, but he's right. Filesystem corruption is NOT > the problem of each individual application. If you stand to lose > billions of dollars worth of data by losing a disk, then perhaps you > should look into frequent backups.
I wouldn't even look that far. Backups are for a last resort. If you have mission-critical storage needs, parity and mirroring are a bare-minimum requirement. And by your numbers below, it's quite a bit cheaper to have arrays of mirrored disks and standbys compared to spending $136k on a software license that still can't completely save you from a hardware failure.
Application-level support is certainly a bonus, but I'd have a hard time believing it's a requirement for the project being discussed here.
-- Edward S. Marshall <emarshal@logic.net> [ What goes up, must come down. ] http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ [ Ask any system administrator. ]
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |