On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:35, "Lucas Albers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As long as the machine is fixed within four days of a problem we don't > > need > > more than one. Email can be delayed, it's something you have to get used > > to. > > Machines are cheap enough, wouldn't it be reasonable to throw in > redundancy? Unless having 2 machines adds unneccessary complexity to the > setup.
Better to have one good machine than three cheap machines. The more machines you have the greater the chance that one of them will break. > Sometimes I don't even realize one of the external relays is broken for a > day...(even though the monitoring tools should tell you.) Which is another good reason for not having such redundant servers. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
