On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:18:37PM -0500, 31337 .. wrote:
> Ok, I'd first like to thank all of you for your input, you have been
> of great help so far. We have discussed the linux-HA project as a
> solution, but they started complaining about a whole server just
> sitting there doing nothing until a failure. I see many people talking

Boy, if I ever saw a place where the term "false economy" applied,
this is it.


> of network connections failing. Once we start getting more users, this
> will all be redundant. The power supplies are redundant (triple setup)
> harddrives are redundant, redundant UPS's, etc. etc..

I have machines worth half a million bucks that are supposed to be
"all redundant", and break in surprising ways.  Don't rely on this
promise for 5 9s.


> a set time or something along those lines. I am confirming now with my
> thoughts, that this automatic failover is going to be a HUGE task, and
> have started to tell them that it is not a good idea. We (or I rather)
> could just miss too many things.

It's just really dangerous: you can lose data.

> I was just wondering what you other guys were doing for failover setups.

We carry pagers, and use high availability stuff.  I'm on a panel at
OSCON this year about it.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well. 
		--Dennis Ritchie