Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Reliability of the switch-over (Score 1) 321

by cybersk4nk (#13707554) Attached to: Clustering vs. Fault-Tolerant Servers
Don't forget that in a parrallel rendundant system, if the fail-over switch or mechanism is any less reliable than the individual components themselves, you might as well not use a fail-over system! Of course this is all theoretical, but any failover system IMHO that uses a software mechanism *built-in* to the devices that can fail is just plain stupid. It's akin to the 'software firewall' vs hardware firewall debate -- hardware firewalls are better because they isolate the hacker from your computer and increase security! If you truly want to build a foolproof redundant failover, it should be a seperate hardware box, like a network switch that senses a fail and brings the other system online. Just from browsing this post and casual knowledge is seems there are very few systems for computers like this, or they use a software method for failover. Does anybody know of any network hardware devices that do just this? Are they efficient? Are the swtiches more reliable (have greater uptime) than the computer servers behind them?

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson

Working...