point...:-)
Jon
-= -Original Message-
-= From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-= [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-= Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-= Sent: Saturday, 7 June 2003 7:58 AM
-= To: Robert Collins
-= Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-= Subject: Re: [SLUG] Redundant Web Servers
-=
-=
-= On 2 Jun 2003, Robert
On 2 Jun 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
Dual homed connection to them, using two separate exchanges and/or
connection technologies - on two power grids... you may need to rent
facilities to get these two things.
And note that not even this will guarantee absolutely seamless failover.
A flapping
Jon Biddell wrote:
Our marketing types want 24/7 availability of our corporate web
site - a fair enough request, I guess...
However we have a number of restrictions on what we can do;
1. Must (presently) remain with IIS - moving to a Linux/Apache
solution may become possible later, but it's
Hi all,
Our marketing types want 24/7 availability of our corporate web
site - a fair enough request, I guess...
However we have a number of restrictions on what we can do;
1. Must (presently) remain with IIS - moving to a Linux/Apache
solution may become possible later, but it's political
At 9:17 am, Monday, June 2 2003, Jon Biddell mumbled:
3. There must be NO DISCERNABLE INTERRUPTION TO SERVICE when one
fails. Doing a shift-reload in the browser is NOT an option. It
must be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT.
You're going to get one anyway. If the machine falls over, you're not going
Let me prefix this: I don't really know what I'm talking about, double
check anything I say.
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 09:16, Jon Biddell wrote:
2. Servers must be physically located on different campuses -
because we connect tot he 'net through AARNET, we want them on
different RNO's.
3.
James == James Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. Servers must be physically located on different campuses -
because we connect tot he 'net through AARNET, we want them on
different RNO's.
3. There must be NO DISCERNABLE INTERRUPTION TO SERVICE when one
fails. Doing a shift-reload in
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, James Gregory wrote:
3. There must be NO DISCERNABLE INTERRUPTION TO SERVICE when one
fails. Doing a shift-reload in the browser is NOT an option. It
must be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT.
James Wow. Well, point 3 makes it pretty hard. As I understand it,
James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 09:16 AM, Jon Biddell wrote:
3. There must be NO DISCERNABLE INTERRUPTION TO SERVICE when one
fails. Doing a shift-reload in the browser is NOT an option. It
must be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT.
The marketing types have to
This one time, at band camp, Luke Burton wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 09:16 AM, Jon Biddell wrote:
3. There must be NO DISCERNABLE INTERRUPTION TO SERVICE when one
fails. Doing a shift-reload in the browser is NOT an option. It
must be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT.
A good compromise might be to
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 09:16, Jon Biddell wrote:
Hi all,
Our marketing types want 24/7 availability of our corporate web
site - a fair enough request, I guess...
However we have a number of restrictions on what we can do;
1. Must (presently) remain with IIS - moving to a Linux/Apache
11 matches
Mail list logo
