While reliability is not the same as availability, availability depends on
it. The less reliable the component pieces are the more redundancy is
required to be available. It depends on what your target availability
is.
Joe Temple
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
845-435-6301 295/6301 cell 914-706-5211 home 845-338-8794
Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
u.org.uk> cc:
Sent by: Linux on Subject: Re: Performance question
390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU>
06/23/2003 03:25
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
On Llu, 2003-06-23 at 20:22, Peter Flass wrote:
> Actually, if availability is critical, run on a mainframe. Everything
> on a mainframe is duplicated (or more), and nearly everything is
> hot-swappable. If one power supply fails, the other takes over. If a
> DASD fails, RAID recovers without a hiccup. You probably need two OSA
> adapters attached to two phone lines, preferably to two central offices,
> but that's about all.
Mainframe is a very expensive way to get availability, and a very poor
one at the extreme end. Its a very good way of getting reliability and
the two are quite different.
