Secondary system is just a cluster setup isn't it? Personally, I think having 2
systems is rather good. You have that sense of redundancy.
I remember working on one system with virtualization. The ultra320 card
connected to the HDD looked bad at first because it kept changing speeds to 80
or 40 mbs. Anyway, it turned out to be the motherboard at fault. Entire system
was down the whole day...both guests were not up.
But I think if you had to work on one guest, update the kernel and etc...then
you could just re-boot one instance instead of the entire machine....
Junhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear all,
Since we are on the topic of virtualisation, I'm just curious what's
everyone's take on virtualisation of hardware/servers versus not having
a single point of failure (i.e. when the main server goes down,
everything goes down with it).
I'm presently considering setting up a secondary system which
automatically kicks in if/when the primary system goes down. But this
seems counter to the argument that virtualisation is a way to
consolidate resources, no?
--
Regards,
Junhao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jmarki.net/
"Oops, what happened?", said Confused Jmarki
_______________________________________________
Slugnet mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your freeaccount today._______________________________________________
Slugnet mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
