Re: [cobalt-users] Re: Re: Cobalt Wish List If you must respond to this do it off the board! (CobaltList)

["Robert G. Fisher" <rfisher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 07:52:14PM -0700, Jeff Lasman wrote:
> But we'll limit it to FPX support because I want it where I can keep an
> eye on it, at least for a while, and the fastest speed I'll have here
> will be 416 kbps.
> 
> If it works out well, and if it looks cost-effective and relatively
> maintenance-free/reboot free, we'll install another one in our colo room
> and use it for high-end database hosting or application hosting.

Reboot and Maintennence free NT???  Jeff, you are a true optimist. ;-)

Although using NT/W2K won't alleviate all FPX problems, the security
issues largely remain the same except that there is no way to point
the FPX on NT to anything besides the SAM (AD in W2K), at least w/ 
IIS 4.

As for the question of clustering, frankly, this has been around for
some time in both NT (4.0) and Linux.  I still haven't seen where 
there is a big difference between NT clustering and say the Linux
VirtualServer project.  

In any event, clustering is really only useful IMHO when you have
enough traffic to a particular site or set of sites that would be
more traffic than any given server machine could handle effectively.

Short of that, the key thing it offers is redundancy, and even that
redundancy is where content has to be republished.  Which means 
ideally in a cluster you'd like to keep the machines identical so
as to make publishing the same content to all servers in the cluster
as painless as possible.


-- 
Robert G. Fisher		     NEOCOM Microspecialists Inc. 
System Administrator/Programmer      (540) 666-9533 x 116