On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:03:06AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> That's bunk.
Gently, gently.
> You can expect power to fail, because power supply facilities and delivery
> facilities are not 100% foolproof. Lines go down, etc.
I believe what was meant is that if a system is, in fact, considered
production in a professional environment, there _must_ be some form
of UPS. This isn't outrageous--a very decent UPS can be had for
marginal cost. To run a production system without this is irresponsible.
Once you include a UPS in the equation, the _probability_ of power
failure-- as seen by the computer--becomes so marginal, and the
_probability_ of disk corruption so marginal (since the system can be
notified by the UPS to shut down cleanly), that most people then find the
overhead of the journaling file system, in its current form, excessive.
> A system is a production system because you have it in every day
> use, performing whatever tasks you have designated for it to do. Whether
> or not you may have a power failure has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a
> systems designation as a production system.
In the most strict sense, perhaps. But if you say "production",
you're implying a "real" installation; to rely on a journaling file
system to the exclusion of a UPS is irresponsible and unprofessional,
and a false economy.
And yes, all my systems on my _home_ network (four machines) have
commercial- grade UPS systems; although being a consultant, I may be a
bit out of the ordinary. You bet that I make sure clients are protected.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
