Erm, unless you are speaking another language where 'single point of failure' is a semantically correct sentence that coincides with the English one I'm familiar with, the point of having a slave is so you can fail over to it if the master fails, thereby removing the 'single point of failure' (Traditional Definition) of the master.
/sarcasm B. :) On 12 January 2012 16:40, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: >> Master/Slave is a fine setup, why not? :) > > Single point of failure.
