Actually, when I am in a position to use carp and pfsync
I often do not bother with embedded, unless I have power concerns.
If you want embedded buy the comell box suggested earlier, but if
you really have no budget, dont bother with raid or other such nonsense.
go find two cheap garage-a-tronics or used i386 boxes with two NICs,
rig up carp and pfsync between them, and be done with it.
I love raid, and use it where I have *DATA* that matters.
if it's just systems and gateways, etc, multiple cheap systems
set up with carp between them work better and cheaper than one system
with dual power supplies, raid controller, etc. etc. etc.
-Bob
> The biggest reason I was choosing to go embedded is that I wanted a
> system that did not have moving parts. This was to hopefully extend the
> life of the machine and increase uptime by eliminating the hard drives
> and power supplies with moving parts. I am not paying for power so I
> can say that I am not concerned about consumption at this point. This
> is only due to the fact that $ is finite at the present time and cannot
> weigh heavily on the list of importance.
>
> The alternative is to use a dual P3 that we have but I am still
> interested in optimum availibility. Do I implement RAID 1 with two
> drives.....OR does this create more problems that it is worth by
> introducing more parts to fail(two drives. Do I implement a Flash card
> reader and install OpenBSD/pf on a compact flash drive? I am not sure
> where I should be drawing the line...I mean do I pay attention to drive
> redundency or power redundency....or even actual firewall redundency?
>
> What is the most bang for the buck in terms of availibility short of a
> hot standby firewall configuration?
>
--
| | | The ASCII Fork Campaign
\|/ against gratuitous use of threads.
|
