Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!kirk From: kirk@oakhill.UUCP (Kirk Livingston) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo Subject: Re: NLS servers Message-ID: <1730@sol.oakhill.UUCP> Date: 7 Dec 88 20:28:44 GMT References: <4014e53a.1837d@apollo.COM> Reply-To: kirk@sol.UUCP (Kirk Livingston) Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx. Lines: 42 In article <4014e53a.1837d@apollo.COM> molson@apollo.com writes: > > In designing the license server, we had the following concerns: > -scalability > -availability > -response time > -security > > In order to provide adequate security AND moveable licenses, you need > strongly consistent replicated databases. Licenses would be locked to > a *group* of replicated servers, rather than to one server. > What's wrong with this. If your central server goes down you can at least continue to use the software you had purchased. > In the end, we felt that replicated servers would solve a problem > that occurs very rarely (failed disks) and was not worth the runtime > expense. But when the disk goes down all of our NLS licensed software would go down with it. Seriously crippling our work until the service man can repair the machine or provide an alternate server. No thanks!! Speed is not the only issue here. NLS must be tolerant to the failure of the server. > By the way, in the unlikely event that a server node dies, I believe that > your service rep can move the nodeid prom to a new machine. This is not a good solution why solve a software problem with a hardware solution. By the way did anyone at apollo ever ask any of the apollo customers what they would prefer?? From the number of complaints so far I doubt it. Kirk Livingston Motorola Inc. The opinions expressed are my own and not of motorola.