Most sites that do this use significantly more than 2 hosts. Most actually have hosts spread all over the world. It is actually quite amazing the scalability you can get when you start to spread traffic all over the world.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 12:03 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Geographical redundancy? > > Well maybe if they have 2 hosts that they can use, and have only > one be live and the other just be sitting there getting updates to > transactions that are processed. Then when (A) went down (B) could > come up. The hosts would most likely need to be several hunred > miles away from eachother though. > > > > > Douglas Brown > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 11:40 AM > Subject: RE: Geographical redundancy? > > > > Sure they can. It is hard and expensive, but yes, they can. > > > > -Matt > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Douglas Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 11:38 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: Re: Geographical redundancy? > > > > > > I would not get into something like that with a client. If you > do, > > > you are putting your head on the chopping block due to the > fact > > > that not all disasters or outages can be avoided. Like the > poster > > > before said, you need something like disaster clause > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas Brown > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Al Musella, DPM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 11:04 AM > > > Subject: Geographical redundancy? > > > > > > > > > > I have to put together a proposal for a medical office > > > management > > > > application which will be used in an ASP (application > service > > > provider - > > > > not the MS language:) model.. one of the requirements is > that > > > the > > > > application has to be hosted in such a way that a major > disaster > > > (natural > > > > or otherwise) in 1 location can't cause the loss of any > data, > > > and only a > > > > small (maybe an hour) downtime for the application. > > > > After the Sept. 11 tragedy, my websites had connectivity > > > problems on > > > > and off for a few days. We also had 24 hours of downtime > when a > > > hurricane > > > > knocked down a bunch of telephone poles near my ISP a few > years > > > ago. > > > > For this application, that wouldn't have been > > > acceptable. > > > > > > > > I have no idea how to approach it. Any ideas? > > > > > > > > > > > > Al > > > > a1webs.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 06:08 PM 5/10/2002 -0400, Justin Greene wrote: > > > > >I Have to agree. Hardware based clustering for the front > > > end... and either > > > > >SQL Enterprise or Veritas on the backend to handle the > database > > > cluster. > > > > >Very solid configuration. We have been hardware clustering > CF > > > with Alteons > > > > >for over 3 years. Just need to keep sessions in the DB and > > > make sure the > > > > >web boxes keep the file systems synched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
