> Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Actually, we've recently begun some experiments with consolidating the
> > more critical services onto a smaller set of machines. In our case,
>
> Put all your eggs in one basket, and then *watch the basket*, eh?
Something like that. Of course, fewer baskets are also easier to
upgrade.
> I vote with the folks who recommend living with two db servers.
> Availability is probably not going to be a problem (tho'
> you will find that if you lose your lowest-number server in the middle
> of the night, backups will fail). On the other hand, if you have
Hmm... True enough if you're running the backup system distributed
with AFS, which depends on a distributed database. On the other hand,
you also lose if whatever machine is running "backup" crashes, and most
sites will probably lose if a tape controller crashes. I don't think
the increased risk is that great.
> a DB server which is operating at high CPU utilization, performance
> will randomly suffer across your entire environment. [ fs talks to pt,
> and cm talks to vl]
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Systems Programmer, CMU SCS Research Facility
Please send requests and problem reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
