Re: 20031111: motherlode inaccessibility

• To: Daryl Herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: 20031111: motherlode inaccessibility
• From: Steve Emmerson <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:40:25 -0700

Daryl,

>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:38:56 -0600 (CST)
>From: Daryl Herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: David Wojtowicz <davidw@xxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: 20031111: motherlode inaccessibility

The above message contained the following:

> I am curious why you use the 'old'(?) failover method of participating in
> the IDD via ldmfail or manual failover.  I am using the 'PRIMARY' and
> 'SECONDARY' keywords in my ldmd.conf and LDM handled the thelma outage
> just fine AFAIK.. (Very nice UNIDATA!, btw)

Thanks.  It's good to know it worked.

You might look at

    
http://dev.unidata.ucar.edu/content/software/ldm/ldm-6.0.14/basics/tradeoffs.html

for more information on the tradeoffs between robustness, latency, and
load.

Regards,
Steve Emmerson

• References:
  • Re: 20031111: motherlode inaccessibility
    • From: Daryl Herzmann