[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [cobalt-users] Failover and the Linux High Availability proje ct



Though you would still be susceptible to earthquakes, fires,
whatnot, you can still have pretty good redundancy by putting
each RaQ on it's own UPS and each on a different subnet or
better yet, a separate network within your ISP/CoLo facility.

Brandon Wheaton
UNIX Systems Engineer
ValiCert, Inc.
1215 Terra Bella Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94043
650.567.5430
----
Computers are useless; they can only provide answers.
~Pablo Picasso

-----Original Message-----
From: H.P. Stroebel [mailto:hpstr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:50 PM
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] Failover and the Linux High Availabilty
project


Chip schrieb:
> I looked into the redundant solution offered by Cobalt, but it
apparently
> involves having the two Raqs close enough to each other that a serial
cable
> can be run between them... which defeats my intended purpose of having
the
> redundant Raqs in different NOCs.

aren`t they connected using the second network interface (which could be
routed) ?

really redundant servers in different nocs are a *really expensive*
project, as you would have to use at least mirroring and monitoring,
using a seperated dedicated line (as you might want redundancy for the
network connection and a safe way to transmit data between the units).

--

H. P.  Ströbel

PGP Digital Fingerprint :
58E0 6ECB 620A A689 E206
BCA8 300F BC45 6EEC F7C3

Yes, I do. But not Yahoo.

_______________________________________________
cobalt-users mailing list
cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature