Alan Pope wrote:
> The protocol is explained in the page I linked to:-
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecSpec
> and further from there to:-
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecTemplate
>
> What I would do is create a new page:-
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuNetworkApplicanceEdition
>
> and paste into
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 22:42 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
> Alan Pope wrote:
> > A very interesting idea. You could write a specification [0] for one and
> > submit it as a blueprint [1]
>
> Done... (at least, entry into the specifications database.)
>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/u
Alan Pope wrote:
> A very interesting idea. You could write a specification [0] for one and
> submit it as a blueprint [1]
Done... (at least, entry into the specifications database.)
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-network-appliance-edition
I have no idea on the "protocol"
Alan,
Gosh - I'll have a look at that, and see whether I can put something
together.
I guess it's one of those areas where, if there are others interested,
the spec will get refined into something useful... and if no-one else's
interested even in debating, then the project would never have att
t you describe -
but of course if someone knows better
E
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison
Sent: 11 September 2007 18:23
To: British Ubuntu Talk
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Ian,
I
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 18:23 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
> When it comes to network infrastructure - I find it notable that there's
> an "Ubuntu Desktop" (well, more than 1 - Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) and an
> "Ubuntu Server" edition... but not an "Ubuntu network infrastructure
> edition"
d common
> concern appears to be that of both hardware failure and reliable backups.
>
> Ok, Ian is leaving the house so you can get the compensation clause back out
> now
>
> E
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
now
E
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison
Sent: 10 September 2007 21:57
To: British Ubuntu Talk
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Alan Pope wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21
Alan Pope wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21:28 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
>
>> Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to
>> underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of
>> income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu f
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison
Sent: 10 September 2007 11:01
To: British Ubuntu Talk
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Ian,
Both :-)
We have a five-server cluster.
2 off, webheads [1]
2 off, database servers [2]
1 off, "spare bo
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21:28 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
> Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to
> underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of
> income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu failure, I'm
> willing to read
Alan Pope wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:00 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
>
>> Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin
>> benefits of resilience and performance.
>>
>>
>
> ..and another single point of failure. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al.
Al,
Yeah - that's why I've (in t
On 10/09/2007, Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:00 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
> > Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin
> > benefits of resilience and performance.
> >
>
> ..and another single point of failure. :)
Maybe that's why he said (pair) of load bala
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:00 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
> Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin
> benefits of resilience and performance.
>
..and another single point of failure. :)
Cheers,
Al.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
ubuntu-uk
Ian,
Both :-)
We have a five-server cluster.
2 off, webheads [1]
2 off, database servers [2]
1 off, "spare box" [3]
[1] Webheads:
At the moment, all the traffic is going to one of them, but the other is
kept updated (rsync is your friend.)
The Plan [TM], once we get more traffic / income, is
Mark et al
When you say you have a spare box lying around waiting for a catasrophe to
happen, is it literally tucked away in storage somewhere, or is it
pre-connected to the farm but just powered down?
The reason I ask is whether you physically alternate the backup box or just
power up / power d
16 matches
Mail list logo
