Received: from p1.selectacast.net (IDENT:root@p1.selectacast.net [206.41.1.251]) by hub.org (8.10.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e9H0XcW32089 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:33:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jks@selectacast.net) Received: from selectacast.net (IDENT:jks@d1 [209.219.91.66]) by p1.selectacast.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08689; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:33:36 -0400 Message-ID: <39EB9E60.B59F6499@selectacast.net> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:33:36 -0400 From: Joseph Shraibman Organization: Xtenit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Clark, Joel" CC: "'Tony Simopoulos'" , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 2 computers 1hd 2 postgres daemons. Is it possible? References: <69F195289743D411B428009027E293C401290E76@CLTEXCH1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200010/140 X-Sequence-Number: 1497 "Clark, Joel" wrote: > > Yeah, I was really just curious if the proposed system was at a system level > or a network level. Having two physical machines share (at the system i/o > level) a storage unit is something I have never heard of. Does such a beast > exist? Yeah, they exist, though why they exist is beyond me. Maybe because windows systems crash all the time. It doesn't make much sense to me, after all it would seem that hard drive failure happens more often that the system crashing for no reason. -- Joseph Shraibman jks@selectacast.net Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com