[4290] in SIPB bug reports
Re: websterd
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard J. Barbalace)
Wed Dec 8 19:59:36 1993
To: "Jonathan I. Kamens" <jik@security.ov.com>
Cc: yandros@MIT.EDU, marthag@MIT.EDU, charon-maintainers@MIT.EDU,
bug-sipb@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 08 Dec 93 12:33:12 -0500.
<199312081733.MAA05084@gza-client1.aktis.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 93 19:55:37 EST
From: "Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>
> Just because why? Is the webster server on snork causing any
> problems? If not, why not just leave it? It's certainly useful to
> have three webster servers rather than two.
The service from snork is noticeably slow, especially when someone
like me is running big unnicety jobs on it. Having 2 webster servers
would be better than having 1.5 (which we have now, counting snork
as only half a server due to slowness and its going away RSN, right?
right? yeah, right....) or 2.5 (which we would have if we kept snork
as a server). Also, preparing for when snork goes away by not relying
on it is a good thing.
> Incidentally, back when pit-manager was in E40, we had a webster
> server in E40, which made the service more reliable for two reasons:
> (1) more servers; (2) more reliability in case of network
> partitioning. It would be useful to try to find a watchmaker to let
> us run a webster server on his/her machine in E40 again.
This would be a Very-Good-Thing(tm). A Somebody-Who-Works-Over-There(tm)
should volunteer.
- Richard
Who would gladly volunteer if someone gave him a nice Maxine in E40. :)
