[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NT vs Linux
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 10:29:04PM +0300, Alex Shnitman wrote:
[clustering, fault-tolerance]
> Does NT have these things, though? NT4 sure doesn't (unless there's
> something major I'm not aware of). Sure they promise for it to be in
> Windows 2000 but until 2004 we can add those things too, so...
I understand that there is an NT fault-tolerance solution, based on a Tandem
product. They do, AFAIK, two-nodes fault-tolerance, and possibly clustering
(that is, load-balancing, process migration).
It is a fair assumption that this thing costs quite a bit of money.
(I sadly sound like a Microsoft press release... I just need to add
'virtual', 'feasible', 'flexible' and 'seamless' and it would be a
full-fledged press release <g> ).
What I want to see is a Linux based fault-tolerance solution, that doesn't
require any special hardware. Something that would allow me to put together
two 486s, with Ethernets, one IDE disk per machine and no special shared
resources (no shared memory bus or shared RAID setup). This ought to be real
fun. Providing fault-tolerance on cheap hardware would be an amusing win
over 'enterprise level' servers... (obviously, it would be quite slow, but
it might be appropriate for certain usages, most notably critical database
management that doesn't require all that much CPU cycles or I/O, but does
require ridiculously high uptime, and an extremely high probability of
data integrity even after a core melt).
Nimrod