On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: > tried to take a bit of a side adventure and get HP-UX going on a > PA-RISC machine and it's no walk in the park. for cost, support, > compatibility and simplicity reasons i've abandoned the project and > decided to use other OSes instead. >
bummer. Was my previous guess was correct that HPUX patches/updates are only available with a HP support contract? If you still have the itch to tinker... > not very > familiar with LDAP configs here but i imagine there is a way to > spread load between machines, making the monolithic solution > pointless. > > thanks for the reminder to investigate LDAP more closely... =) > LDAP can do some *VERY* cool stuff including load balancing, fail over and similar. Whether you "need" a huge monolithic system actually depends on how you define "need" -See Marc Balmers' post regarding supporting multiple services for 15K accounts with only two servers. Chris Paul over at Sentinare (http://www.sentinare.com) provides SEC/NASD/SOX compliant message archiving with LDAP for publicly traded corporations and as far as I know, it's being done with racks of fast boxes rather than using super behemoth 16/32/64/128 CPU systems. To justify using behemoth systems you must have: 1.) money to burn 2.) insane load and storage requirements 3.) proper cost/benefit analysis and testing Even if you can justify using behemoths, would you rather have a full rack of 32, quad processor opteron systems which you can easily repurpose individually as business needs change, or would you rather spend the more money on a a pair of 64 processor beasts and fight the system partitioning battle? -The answer is usually defined by which flavor of marketing koolaid you drank and/or what kind of "incentives" the vendor is offering to you personally... there are few things better than an all expense paid eight week "training" course on some exotic island.... and there are few things worse than your boss going to the training. :-) jcr
