[1300] in IS Home Pages
Re: Proposal for moving Product/Pub/Course dbs up to FileMaker 5
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ginny Williams)
Fri Jun 9 11:34:31 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <v04020a04b566bb8112e7@[18.177.6.59]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:30:23 -0400
To: kcunning@mit.edu, is-home@mit.edu
From: Ginny Williams <ginnyw@MIT.EDU>
Cc: cg@mit.edu
I second Chris' request.
As we've discussed before, since the FileMaker services are not using the
"recommended" software or hardware, you are leaving yourselves open to even
more criticism by not having them in a secured closet on a UPS (also the
"recommendation")...however justified you feel in your implementation.
Everytime it goes down there's more reason for opponents to voice
criticisms about the server and then the database. This would be a fairly
minor change to implement and is a step toward moving this server into the
mainstream.
I know that the stability problems aren't exactly related to the location
of the server, but it would mean that more people would be able to get it
going should it go down.
Just my personal opinion.
g
--- begin forwarded text
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:49:21 -0400
To: "Kevin M. Cunningham" <kcunning@mit.edu>, is-home@mit.edu, swrt@mit.edu,
support-tp@mit.edu
From: Chris Griffith <cg@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposal for moving Product/Pub/Course dbs up to FileMaker 5
on June 17
Cc: cg@mit.edu
Might I suggest that training.mit.edu be moved to the N42 server
closet? I think it's risky to have a production server out in an
open area (the N42-2nd cube space), and not on an uninterruptible
power supply (UPS). The server closet is locked 24/7 and has a UPS
unit.
These measures seem fairly painless to implement, and they would go a
long way towards insuring higher service reliability.
Chris
--- end forwarded text
