[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: data feed source request

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: Re: data feed source request
  • Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:01:55 -0600 (MDT)
Art and Chuck, 

Ok how about this...

In the case that ldm.meteo.psu.edu dies, then you are right, it would be
beneficial for you to have a failover. Although this is probably a remote
chance, we can obfuscate this problem by allowing you the same failover as
ldm.meteo.psu.edu.  [Murphy's law, we don't do it and ldm.meteo.psu.edu.
will die, if you have the failover ldm.meteo.psu.edu will remain stable :)

Art, 

Your primary is thelma and your failover is iita correct?

This way if hardware problems keep ldm.meteo.psu.edu down, then the
other sites at PSU can failover to the designated failover site, and keep
the feed going.


Comments..?

Thanks,

-Jeff
____________________________                  _____________________
Jeff Weber                                    address@hidden
Unidata Support                               PH:303-497-8676 
COMET Case Study Library                      FX:303-497-8690
University Corp for Atmospheric Research      3300 Mitchell Ln
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/jweber      Boulder,Co 80307-3000
________________________________________      ______________________

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Charles Pavloski wrote:

> Hi Jeff and Art,
> 
> I 100% agree with Art that the server should stay right where it is as node
> ldm.meteo.psu.edu.  My only concern about not having a formal failover site
> is that if something should happen to ldm.meteo.psu.edu, I have no immediate 
> recourse.  Jeff, are you sure it is wise not to have a failover site ready to
> go in such a situation?  I'd feel better if it was in place.
> 
> - Chuck
> 
>