Re:BIG/IP from F5 Networks...
on
Linux Failover?
·
· Score: 1
Rather than failover, consider using a load-balancing device. You'll get use of all of the boxes (and more can be added as traffic dictates) and it will automatically stop routing traffic to a downed box. It can be transparent or semi-tranparent to the servers. Of course, the application has to support being run from multiple servers simultaneously.
There are a number of commercial products from F5, Alteon, Extreme, Intel, and others.
If you have a wheel mouse, it may not function with the KVM switches. The low-end Belkin I use at work has this problem. Otherwise, it's been as reliable as any I've used.
Who, of those who've posted so many flaming comments, has actually *studied* evolutionary biology? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Who has *studied* "creationism"? What does it mean? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Use your brains....most of what I've seen is a bunch of jerking knees. Get the facts before posting!
"It is an error to imagine that evolution signifies a constant tendency to increased perfection." -- Thomas Henry Huxley (Yet another quote taken out of context)
This is a real twist of reality. It is Microsoft that has ignored the lessons learned in OS development. They seem to have made just about every mistake that can be made--20 years after IBM and others made them!
Linux may not be perfect, but decision are being made based on the best knowledge the developers have (e.g., and not the marketeers).
Methinks the "popular press" has a somewhat universal agenda that involves in part keeping the big advertisers happy. And to keep reporting simple, everything gets a stimulus-response pattern associated with it. For example, stimulus: "Linux", response "hard to install". It is important to write stories and show examples that reinforce these responses.
I've been installing operating systems since the days of IBM DOS (that's mainframe DOS) and Apple II. After spending a late night this week getting a friend's Win95 box working again, I'd have to say that ultimately there is no difference between installing RedHat 5.2 and Win95. If the hardware is supported by the OS, the installation goes smoothly. If the hardware is not supported, it does not.
There is the FUD factor to overcome. Once a person *believes* that something is going to be difficult, it usually is. Although experienced in OS installation, I believed Linux was going to be difficult. It was, until I did it. Then it was so simple, I wondered if I had skipped some steps.
The rewards of a dependable and quick OS have led me to convert my work and home computers to Linux. To anyone who would do an install: make sure you have supported hardware and "just do it".
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than failover, consider using a load-balancing device. You'll get use of all of the boxes (and more can be added as traffic dictates) and it will automatically stop routing traffic to a downed box. It can be transparent or semi-tranparent to the servers. Of course, the application has to support being run from multiple servers simultaneously.
There are a number of commercial products from F5, Alteon, Extreme, Intel, and others.
If you have a wheel mouse, it may not function with the KVM switches. The low-end Belkin I use at work has this problem. Otherwise, it's been as reliable as any I've used.
Agreed. The response was very well done, as well as encouraging and helpful in it's clarity.
Who, of those who've posted so many flaming comments, has actually *studied* evolutionary biology? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Who has *studied* "creationism"? What does it mean? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Use your brains....most of what I've seen is a bunch of jerking knees. Get the facts before posting!
"It is an error to imagine that evolution signifies a constant tendency to increased perfection." -- Thomas Henry Huxley
(Yet another quote taken out of context)
There's an introductory article in the June 1999 Linux Journal that may help...
Linux may not be perfect, but decision are being made based on the best knowledge the developers have (e.g., and not the marketeers).
Methinks the "popular press" has a somewhat universal agenda that involves in part keeping the big advertisers happy. And to keep reporting simple, everything gets a stimulus-response pattern associated with it. For example, stimulus: "Linux", response "hard to install". It is important to write stories and show examples that reinforce these responses.
I've been installing operating systems since the days of IBM DOS (that's mainframe DOS) and Apple II. After spending a late night this week getting a friend's Win95 box working again, I'd have to say that ultimately there is no difference between installing RedHat 5.2 and Win95. If the hardware is supported by the OS, the installation goes smoothly. If the hardware is not supported, it does not.
There is the FUD factor to overcome. Once a person *believes* that something is going to be difficult, it usually is. Although experienced in OS installation, I believed Linux was going to be difficult. It was, until I did it. Then it was so simple, I wondered if I had skipped some steps.
The rewards of a dependable and quick OS have led me to convert my work and home computers to Linux. To anyone who would do an install: make sure you have supported hardware and "just do it".