Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet

[David Newall]

Daniel Phillips wrote:
>> Also, please note that the problem here is not related to the number of
>> nines of availability. This number only counts the ratio between uptime
>> and downtime. We're more facing a problem of MTBF, where the consequences
>> of a failure are hard to predict.
>>     
>
> That is why I keep recommending that a ramback setup be replicated or
> mirrored, which people in this thread keep glossing over.  When
> replicated or mirrored, you still get the microsecond-level transaction
> times, and you get the safety too.

Do you mean it should be replicated with a second ramback?  That would
be pretty pointless, since all failure modes would affect both.  It's
not like one ramback will survive a crash when the other doesn't.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/