For the file serving needs of the vast majority of small networks, how can one justify more than an Apple Time Capsule?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Mark Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 06:27 +0900, Onno Benschop wrote: > > I'm not saying that their solution is crap, I'm saying that they're > > telling me one thing and offering me another. They're telling me the > > machine is a real server, "it's running Open Solaris was the mantra", > > but when I actually want to use it as a server (which personally I think > > would be an excellent idea - and I'm interested to hear comment on > > this), I void my support contract which makes no sense to me at all. > > So we're having a discussion on the Ubuntu server mailinglist, about how > you misinterpreted a marketing line from Sun? > > > Ironically, the VMware issue came up and I suggested to the Sun engineer > > in front of me at the time that if they actually had real VMware > > certification, why didn't they offer to run appliances on the machine, > > and amend the support contract to include something like this: "If your > > problem is caused by your running VMware appliance, Sun support will be > > unable to assist you, however, if when the appliance is stopped and the > > issue persists, you'll receive full Sun support." - but I suspect that > > it will be some time before we see something like that :-) > > ^^ Still missing the point of the box... > > > Which reminds me, there was no discussion about what happens to their > > system during upgrade. There is a roll-back for upgrades, but there was > > no discussion about what happens during the upgrade and no reference to > > interoperability between clustered solutions either (other than to say > > that interoperability was extremely closely tied to firmware versions > > and OS versions), so there is no information on if two or more clustered > > devices can run together with different versions, so you can reboot one > > after an upgrade without turning off the cluster - I suspect "that's in > > a future release". > > > > A final Ubuntu-server thought, the roll-back idea seemed like a really > > cool thing that we could implement with a snap-shot. That is, do a > > system-snap-shot before any upgrades leaving the ability to roll-back a > > system if the upgrade had issues - of course little things like incoming > > mail and database queries might be a problem, but if we deal with that > > by separating the OS from the data (hmm, where did I hear that before > > :), then we might have ourselves a feature that I know I'd use. Nothing > > like doing an upgrade at midnight, having it fail and spending the next > > 8 hours fixing it :) > > A dist-upgrade has never taken me more than two hours. Falling back to a > snapshot is nice if you don't have (or take) the time to do your > upgrade. But I'd rather fix the problem I see when upgrading than going > back a snapshot and start of over again (running into the same issues). > > -- > Mark Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- http://ls.net http://drupal.ls.net
-- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
