>> Yeah, it's funny... I've noticed this strange correlation between
>> expensive down-time and management willingness to invest in
>> fault-tolerant equipment. ;-)
>
> As we get more people and process more data - the more down time will
> cost. Eventually we may get to higher uptime requirements - but for now
> 2 hours of downtime 2x a year is not too bad.

As with everything, it depends on just how expensive down-time actually 
is. If the answer is "not very", you don't need to worry about fixing it 
too much.

Amusing anecdote: One of our servers had a hardware RAID system. The 
idea is that if one of the drives dies, the RAID controller will keep 
the server operational. You know what died? THE RAID CONTROLLER! >_<

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2012 11:07 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's funny... I've noticed this strange correlation between
>>> expensive down-time and management willingness to invest in
>>> fault-tolerant equipment. ;-)
>>
>> As we get more people and process more data - the more down time will
>> cost. Eventually we may get to higher uptime requirements - but for now
>> 2 hours of downtime 2x a year is not too bad.
>
> As with everything, it depends on just how expensive down-time actually
> is. If the answer is "not very", you don't need to worry about fixing it
> too much.
>
> Amusing anecdote: One of our servers had a hardware RAID system. The
> idea is that if one of the drives dies, the RAID controller will keep
> the server operational. You know what died? THE RAID CONTROLLER! >_<


I like what Google has set up - files are stored everywhere on cheap 
hardware.  If something fails, then it just gets swapped out.  But the 
cheap hardware fails often and requires more manpower to manage and 
replace it.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2012 7:12 PM, Tom Austin wrote:
> But the cheap hardware fails often and requires more manpower to manage
> and replace it.

Jobs! :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Amusing anecdote: One of our servers had a hardware RAID system. The
>> idea is that if one of the drives dies, the RAID controller will keep
>> the server operational. You know what died? THE RAID CONTROLLER! >_<
>
> I like what Google has set up - files are stored everywhere on cheap
> hardware. If something fails, then it just gets swapped out. But the
> cheap hardware fails often and requires more manpower to manage and
> replace it.

Yeah, but most people can't do that. Most people don't have the space, 
ventilation or power requirements to host hundreds of boxes, nor the 
money to pay a team of twenty people to keep it all running.

On top of that, most applications are /not/ designed for distributed 
implementation. If you're Google, you can just /write/ the software you 
need. Most business buy it off the shelf.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/17/2012 1:06, Invisible wrote:
> Yeah, but most people can't do that. Most people don't have the space,
> ventilation or power requirements to host hundreds of boxes, nor the money
> to pay a team of twenty people to keep it all running.

Google has hundreds of computers in their data centers. Unfortunately for 
you, Google counts "a shipping container full of thousands of mother boards 
and disk drives" as "a computer". ;-)  It's really quite awesome. Upgrading 
a server is known as "forklifting" it.

> On top of that, most applications are /not/ designed for distributed
> implementation. If you're Google, you can just /write/ the software you
> need. Most business buy it off the shelf.

And you know, I really, really miss SQL. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/01/2012 03:04 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Google has hundreds of computers in their data centers. Unfortunately
> for you, Google counts "a shipping container full of thousands of mother
> boards and disk drives" as "a computer". ;-) It's really quite awesome.
> Upgrading a server is known as "forklifting" it.

Pictures or it didn't happen. :-P

Actually, I was just thinking about how many scrap PCs you could 
scavenge and wire together to make a cluster. I wonder how much old junk 
you would need to even come close to the processing power of a single 
high-spec PC?

> And you know, I really, really miss SQL. :-)

Even if it does violate the relational model? Aww, it must be wuv...

Post a reply to this message

> On 16/01/2012 7:12 PM, Tom Austin wrote:
>> But the cheap hardware fails often and requires more manpower to manage
>> and replace it.
>
> Jobs! :-D
>

No.  He died a while back.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> Jobs! :-D
>
> No. He died a while back.

Oldies but goldies...

Post a reply to this message

On 18/01/2012 1:42 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:

>> On 16/01/2012 7:12 PM, Tom Austin wrote:
>>> But the cheap hardware fails often and requires more manpower to manage
>>> and replace it.
>>
>> Jobs! :-D
>>
>
> No. He died a while back.
>

Jobbies! Then. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/13/2012 2:07 PM, Tom Austin wrote:
>
> So now the hunt - why did winbind die......
>
>
>


It died because I made a small configuration change.

I did not make a backup of the config file because I was making a very 
simple change that was very easily undoable.
Just a simple x = y line.

Well, in VI I hit i too many times and that little extra 'i' got added 
to the domain for winbind - in a hard to see place.

So, lesson learned - no matter how simple the modification - always make 
a copy that you can fall back to that is UNMODIFIED from what works.

At least now I have a simple smb.conf for sharing files in an emergency.

Post a reply to this message