On 10/3/07, Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, well, like I said in my original emails before I got sidetracked.... :-P > > Linux-HA may be "in good shape" to some but it's simply unacceptable > to others. It would be great if it was bundled with a Linux distro > with an idiot-proof (well, idiot-resistant...) GUI or a "wizard" or > "druid" or whatever. > > But the thing is, Linux-HA functionality is quite behind what's > commercially accepted as the baseline, it's not funny. >
So whats the commercially accepted baseline? and what test can you suggest? > So if you're just worried about failing over stateless web servers, so whats so bad about stateless protocols? i prefer them actually. specially over the internet. you can do distributed transactions over over them and stay sane. > then LVS + Linux-HA will probably float your boat. And that's about > it.. > > So enlighten me. What are the big boys capable of? How does oracle do it? A custom network stack? custom machines? non volatile transaction memory? election algorithms? cant we at least tell him to try it and that YMMV? my main problem with your reply is that you are saying trash linux-ha and dig into your packet. i find it totally unacceptable as a linux advocate to give up and tell people to go somewhere else. if its not good enough i would like to find out why and try to fix it. or at least find someone who can volunteer to fix it and that means sending emails to the linux-ha guys. -- Lay low and nourish in obscurity _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
