× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



To be clear, I did not intend to imply anything about a crash. The 'skinny' primary concept is not merely for crashes. The concept is for both unscheduled and *scheduled* down time. If the hosted partition is an effective production [or another type of environment] which should be able to continue active, even while other partition(s) are down, then instead of using a production primary and one hosted, there should probably be a skinny primary and two hosted. The latter is what I tried to suggest was the more prudent implementation for that environment. In that manner the first and second hosted partitions can go up & down as required without impacting the other. But since the skinny primary would be used effectively by nobody and for effectively nothing, that best ensures the primary would rarely need to be powered down, irrespective of planned versus unplanned. Using the former model, if the hosting partition must be IPLed to apply maintenance, the hosted partition is also unavailable for that long... and if both need to have the same maintenance, then the hosted partition is unavailable through both applications; scheduled maintenance on the first makes the second longer and/or unscheduled down time.

Regards, Chuck

Pete Massiello wrote:
I can't remember the last time any of my machines or partitions crashed, so
with that said I would run a guested partition, as my environments and all
my customers machines hardly ever crash.
This is just my .02

Pete

CRPence wrote:

Wilt, Charles wrote:
pete massiello wrote:

<<SNIP>> gives people a great way to test out a new version of the
OS. One drawback is that the HostING partition becomes like a
.>>> Primary partition to the HostED partition.

That being the case, do you think it'd be wise to consider going back
to the old recommendation that your primary (HostING) partition, not
be doing any production work? That the HostING partition's only job
be to host the partitions where the real work is occurring>?

That would be prudent, *if* the hosted partitions will be used in a manner that mimics typical use of the more thoroughly separated [and more likely permanent] Logical Partitions. However I would expect that most hosted /i/ partitions would typically be used in ways that will eliminate most concerns for the impact of an IPL of the primary. That is, hosted partitions will probably be used for various testing, whereby each hosted partition is considered a _temporary_ [non-production] test environment. A hosted partition is unlikely for instance, to be the target of continuous updates to maintain an up-to-date image of the primary or another hosted partition, in order to maintain a somewhat permanent testbed. <<SNIP>>

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.