disadvantages of a linux cluster

[Leif Nixon]

"Paul Redfern" <red at tc.cornell.edu> writes:

> The first four months (initial period of analysis) with Windows 2000
> Advanced Server, MIT reported 99.9986% uptime. Since then, the
> machine got hardened and reliability for it and our other clusters,
> has gotten better, not worse. We've been operating Windows 2000
> clusters since the server OS was first introduced. Typically outages
> are handled in less than ten minutes on one node with spare memory
> and hard drives. Outages don't affect the overall cluster; the
> scheduler works around it, and the cluster continues to run.

So a single node failure doesn't count against the uptime, is that
what you are saying? If that is the case, precisly what definition of
"uptime" are you using?

-- 
Leif Nixon                                    Systems expert
------------------------------------------------------------
National Supercomputer Centre           Linkoping University
------------------------------------------------------------