251–260 of 390 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use example.com for that purpose :p
Wow, it works, but it really seems like it shouldn't. I'd expected reserved domain names to not resolve at all let alone be pingable and point at a working webserver. Has it always had a website?
HN was down because the failover server also failed: https://twitter.com/HNStatus/status/1545409429113229312 Double disk failure is improbable but not impossible. The most impressive thing is that there seems to be no dataloss, almost whatsoever. Whatever the backup system is, it seems rock solid.
> Double disk failure is improbable but not impossible. It's not even improbable if the disks are the same kind purchased at the same time.
Went to Reddit instead today more than I should (not proud). Anyone been on Slashdot lately? Checked it out too was really nice.
I don't think I had ever fully internalized how often I open this site throughout the day. Finish a task? HN. Got frustrated/stuck on a problem? HN break. Waiting for something to install/upload/compile/etc? HN. Needless to say I opened a new tab, typed "n", and hit enter countless times today before my brain caught up with my muscle memory.
I don't think I had ever fully internalized how often I open this site throughout the day. Finish a task? HN. Got frustrated/stuck on a problem? HN break. Waiting for something to install/upload/compile/etc? HN. Needless to say I opened a new tab, typed "n", and hit enter countless times today before my brain caught up with my muscle memory.
> Needless to say I opened a new tab, typed "n", and hit enter countless times today before my brain caught up with my muscle memory. I do this too, and it's because this site is an addictive slot machine just like every other social networking site. I actually really hate this website, but I'm here almost every day, because I can't seem to break the habit. Neat. It's probably because I have a common impulse control…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Double disk failure is improbable but not impossible. It's actually surprisingly common for failover hardware to fail shortly after the primary hardware. It's normally been exposed to similar conditions to what killed the primary and the strain of failing over pushes it over the edge.
Isn't that more for load balancing than failover? For load balancing I would consider this very likely because both are equally loaded. But "failover" I would usually consider a scenario where a second server is purely in wait for the primary to fail, in which case it would be virtually unused. Like an active/passive scenario as someone mentioned below. But perhaps I got my terminology mixed up. I'm not working with…
You know how they say to always test your backups? Always test your failover too.
HN was down because the failover server also failed: https://twitter.com/HNStatus/status/1545409429113229312 Double disk failure is improbable but not impossible. The most impressive thing is that there seems to be no dataloss, almost whatsoever. Whatever the backup system is, it seems rock solid.
> Double disk failure is improbable but not impossible. It's not even improbable if the disks are the same kind purchased at the same time.