linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47DCB347.2060706@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:12:31 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
CC:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet

Daniel Phillips wrote:
>> Also, please note that the problem here is not related to the number of
>> nines of availability. This number only counts the ratio between uptime
>> and downtime. We're more facing a problem of MTBF, where the consequences
>> of a failure are hard to predict.
>>     
>
> That is why I keep recommending that a ramback setup be replicated or
> mirrored, which people in this thread keep glossing over.  When
> replicated or mirrored, you still get the microsecond-level transaction
> times, and you get the safety too.

Do you mean it should be replicated with a second ramback?  That would
be pretty pointless, since all failure modes would affect both.  It's
not like one ramback will survive a crash when the other doesn't.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/