|
At 06:15 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Ted Pavlic wrote:
>> Sorry for throwing my 2 cents out, but I think LVS box could never
>> be the bottle neck for 99.999% situations. If we are thinking balancing
>> on the wide area networks, that would be totally different. Another
>> thought, if the concern was the LVS being the bottle neck, what
>> about implement something similar to Radware that has both
>> primary and 2ndary taking traffic at the same time?
>
>I don't think Joe was talking about the LVS being a bottleneck. I think he
>was talking about having plenty of LVS for high-availability.
Sorry for mis-read Joe's message. Having high quality parts
in the LVS box can help improving the high availability. Adding
number of boxes may or may not achieve the high-availability.
Considering the electronics parts failure rate is a constant,
the larger number of parts, the higher the failure rate. That is
why the 20 years old Toyota (with almost no electronics control)
has much lower failure rate than today's multi-computer controlled
vehicle (any brand).
|
