sott.net troubles question

name

Jedi Master
sott.net (and ponerology.com and signs-of-the-times.org) did not connect for me yesterday, so i decided to look at it in the evening.

The following left me without sleep (it is now 05:30):

_http://www.sedo.com/search/details.php4?language=us&domain=sott.net&partnerid=17505

According to it, sott.net is up for auction ( US$1219 when I looked). I thought you'd want to know.

I'm glad to see that everything seems to be back to normal.

Are you people OK ?
 
Hi name,

We had some rather 'interesting' server issues over the past day and a half - so we were out of commission. I use the word 'interesting' because the new server we just installed had specific characteristics that should have minimized, if not eliminated, the risk of 'downtime'.

I'm sure the crew at 'sott HQ' can fill us in more tomorrow - but, at this point, it's just good to have the server back up again.
 
Yes, it is a "mystery." New server, new hard drives, mirrored hard drives... and it goes down like that??? Then, support says they are installing a new hard drive and it takes over 24 hours to do that??? Well, anything is possible.
 
I was glad that the cassiopeae site was not down also as I am currently rereading the wave once more and I was at Chapter 14: All there is is lessons, The Symbols of Reality. I thought the timing was interesting. Also in the next chapter Laura tells of what happened during launching of the russian site and her loss of a complete file.
 
I am glad that SOTT is back up and running.

Your IT guys might want to look into redundant fail-over systems,
clustering, or web server failover farms with smart routers with
failover redirection since you already do have several web-host
providers hosting cassiopaea[.com/.org], sott, and so on, so
it is possible to "integrate" all your sites together at each of the
web-host providers but with fail-over and/or "crossover" support?
You should think about your databases too as they should also
be redundant. There are software (and hardware) solutions that
can replicate databases on the fly, for example.

In short, redundancy should be seen at a global level, from a
geographical, hardware, and software point of view. The design
of the system should be well thought out.

As for "mirrored" drive systems, if one mirror breaks, the other
mirror should have kept on going depending on the mirroring
hardware or software used. The system *should* have kept
running and all it should have taken was a hot-swapped drive with
automatic mirroring recovery that would have resulted with no loss
of downtime. It always depends on the software/hardware used but
hardware solutions are always best depending on the vendor. With
expensive harware raid cards, I have used RAID 0,1 and 5
configurations and had it running for a very long time except in cases
where the motherboard, power supply, or power failure at the plug.

There are of course redundant motherboards, power supplies, and
so on but it gets expensive, and then there is clustering (more than
one computer and in geographically dispersed locations.)

But, with the proliferation of cheap web-hosting sites, you should be
able to design a system where if the primary web server (farm) fails,
other web servers (farms) should pick up where the connection was
dropped.

Of course, the hard part about redundancy is getting the knowledge,
understanding it, and applying it, and it takes resources, time, and
money.
 
Back
Top Bottom