John R Pierce wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> (1) Was the transition from v4 to v5 according to plan, and smoothe?
>> (2) If not, then was the cause of the unplanned transition due to an
>> unforeseen (in the sense of when, not that) hardware failure?
>>
>> If the answer to (1) is "No" and the answer to (2) is "Yes", then
>> the plan was inadequate.
>>
>
> if you'd like to donate some decent 2U servers to the project, colocated
> at distributed data centers, with reasonable ToS, I'm sure they'd be
> glad to rectify that.
As I've already commented, if they are in control of their own
machines, and understand NAT, there is no reason, except possibly
lack of RAM or swap space, that both the v4 and v5 servers could
run concurrently on the same hardware. If RAM or swap is inadequate,
then the servers might run, but with unacceptable speed performance.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
