On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:56 PM, David Magda wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2010, at 15:17, Tim Cook wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote: >> >>> 100% uptime for 20 years? >>> >>> So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the >>> difference? >>> >> >> They had/have clustering software that was/is bulletproof. I don't think >> anyone in the Unix community has duplicated it to date. As for differences, >> google is your friend? >> >> http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/vms_vs_unix.html > > And by "clustering" we're not talking about something like Sun Cluster where > it restarts an application after a node fails. It's more along the lines of > multiple machines acting as a single server (though each runs its own copy of > the OS--not a single image system):
Did you ever wonder why Solaris Cluster seemed to be overkill for a simple failover service? The original design goals for Solaris Cluster looked a lot more like VMScluster than what you see today in Solaris Cluster. You can see the remnants remain in the code and features like pxfs (no, ZFS won't work with pxfs). The barriers to bringing such technology from a simple process model (like VMS) to a modern OS like Solaris are daunting. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
