nanog mailing list archives
Re: One-element vs two-element design
From: Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:55:44 +0200
Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Most, if not all, redundant systems have a single instance of synchronization protocol. One significant vendor of packet forwarding gear was known for hanging the secondary RP almost every time when the primary failed. The hang was usually associated withLast year, a Boeing in flight over the middle of the pacific ocean had its entire glass cockpit system go dark. After frantic conversation with the air traffic controllers a decision was made to toggle the circuit breakers for the TRIPLE-REDUNDANT computer system onboard, which brought back the displays. Even with a 2+1 setup, things can still go wrong...
chatter failing with the failed card :-) Pete
Current thread:
- One-element vs two-element design Timothy Brown (Jan 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: One-element vs two-element design Brent_OKeeffe (Jan 16)
- Re: One-element vs two-element design Scott McGrath (Jan 17)
- Re: One-element vs two-element design Deepak Jain (Jan 17)
- Re: One-element vs two-element design Scott McGrath (Jan 17)
- Re: One-element vs two-element design Eric Kuhnke (Jan 17)
- Re: One-element vs two-element design Petri Helenius (Jan 18)
- Re: One-element vs two-element design Scott McGrath (Jan 17)