RE: Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability

>But why are they down?  Is their servers down?  Their ISP connections?
>Hacked DNS?  Human error on updating the pages or configuration?  Just
>because someone like IBM or MSN web sites are down are usually
>not do to the
>servers but some other factor.  I am doughbt that either use a single
>server.  If it is mission critical application that can never
>be down, you
>should have at least 2 servers, two internet connection with
>two ISPs, which
>is impossible.  A load balanced server farm by design would
>give you better
>uptime than any single server solution.  Nothing can be running all the
>time.

This is the way that telephone switches generally work.  There are two
processors (LPAR?) with separate software loads, often at different release
levels.  That way neither a hardware issue nor a software issue can bring
the switch down.

To bring this back on topic for the 400, would an LPARd machine running V5R1
and V4R5 be able to avoid the single point of failure problem, or would you
really need two separate cabinets?  Take destruction of the machine room by
fire, flood or other catastrophe out of the equation for the purposes of
this discussion.

I believe that the number one cause of failure in modern computing systems
is not hardware (cheap or not) but software.  No, I cannot back this up with
published numbers, but I seem to recall far more fixpacks to repair a given
issue than I recall a hardware replacement.  The recent disk drive scare is
an exception to the norm.
  --buck