From: Damien Morton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jul 28 2000 - 20:04:17 PDT
Does iPal care if one of their machines goes down for 5 minutes?
I know how stable Sun boxes can be, I also know how stable NT can be.
The uptime of a 10 box NT cluster is completely comparable to a 10 box Unix
cluster. Other factors will tend to dominate any statistics about uptime,
once you get up to a certain number of machines in a cluster.
Failover is a strategy that has been succesfully used by the most reliable
of solutions, and is one which is perfectly legitimate.
Forgive me, Im a little drunk, and not at all religious when it comes to
OSs. If my T1 connection has 99% uptime, what do I care if my cluster has
99.9% or 99.99% uptime.
What is the cost difference (in hardware, software and personel) between a
solution that offers 99.9% uptime and 99.99% uptime. Does that cost make
sense in terms of my business?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Dossick [mailto:sdossick@iPal.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 10:39 PM
> To: Damien Morton
> Cc: Gavin Thomas Nicol; FoRK
> Subject: Re: FW: Kill the RIAA: a protocol
> Errrp...if I have to buy 2+ NT boxen plus clustering solutions to get
> the stability and remote-managability of a single sun box, I know which
> one I would choose.
> (We chose Suns. The supposed price benefit melts away when you include
> managability, plus sun is basically throwing money at small companies
> these days. Ask me how much iPal pays for 10 Sun 220Rs with 2 450mhz
> procs, 1gb ram, 36gb disk, etc etc leased on a 2 yr plan. I guarantee
> you will be surprised -- even Rohit was :).
> Damien Morton wrote:
> > So what if a machine reboots once in a while, with clustering
> you just dont
> > care - it means a 10% hit on performance until the machine reboots.
> > Comparing uptime is like comparing dick size. Nice to have, but easy to
> > compensate for.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:email@example.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:44 PM
> > > To: FoRK
> > > Subject: RE: FW: Kill the RIAA: a protocol
> > >
> > >
> > > > Undoubtedly, NT is more stable than 95/98. Ran NT for dev boxes,
> > > > servers up at the office for years; it got better over
> time, but still
> > > never
> > > > the uptime I was used to from old SunOS / BSD boxes.
> > >
> > > Most NT boxes in high-end (> 2,500,000 hits per server per
> day) I've seen,
> > > simply didn't stay up for more than a few days, despite
> *lot's* of work.
> > >
> > > Sun boxes, once configured, don't crash nearly as often.
> > >
> > >
> Steve Dossick
> Founder and Chief Architect
> 310-578-8331 (voice)
> 310-578-8336 (fax)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 28 2000 - 20:16:49 PDT