On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can > > have two to replace it within a day or two. > > > > The point being, there's no reason to have two seperate machines when one > > can do the job. As long as it keeps up, then there should be no cause for > > concern. > > If you have one machine, and it dies, and it takes you a day or two to > replace it, then it cannot "do the job". If you can guarantee that it > never dies (somehow), then maybe it could.
Ok, I can guarantee that it never dies. The hardrives are raid 5 configuration, and the power supplies are redundant, and if any of the three cpu/mem boards goes bad, I can just remove it and let the other two (4x cpu's and 4gigs ram) run. Then there's also two 10/100mbit ethernet adapters. It wont die all together, it's an enterprise class system. It's meant to keep going, even if it has to limp to do so. Even with 1 cpu/mem board, it still would have 2 cpu's and 2gigs of ram. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
