3 ms·
What verytrivial said!!!! I’ve been in similar situations, but never without an immediately obvious solution. That system WILL FAIL. Even as we speak the tim
by CareyB 7y ago
What verytrivial said!!!!
I’ve been in similar situations, but never without an immediately obvious solution.
That system WILL FAIL. Even as we speak the time-to-failure is shrinking.
Even if one of the solutions described below actually works, you won’t get 100% recovery.
I recall a story years ago - from MIT, if memory serves - where they rebooted a system because they had many generations of Sybase backups. When they tried, it didn’t work. Nobody had actually tested recovering from a backup.
Grit your teeth; cover your ass; and get on with it. The clock IS ticking.
- pawelos 7y agoAah, my favorite write-only backups.
- mrweasel 7y ago> That system WILL FAIL. I think that the key point. We have a system that can't easily be restarted and won't automatically start after a server is rebooted. The developers of the software don't care, because "what are the chances of a virtual machine spontaneously restarting". Turns out, those chances are rather good. Servers, virtual machines, containers, doesn't matter, unless that thing is running on a mainframe, it will crash.
- andai 7y agoWhat's special about mainframes in this context?
- DuskStar 7y agoMainframes tend to be designed with extreme uptime in mind - to the point of often having hot-swappable processors.
- marcosdumay 7y agoThe software doesn't care. It will crash anyway.
- DuskStar 7y agoOh, of course. But the MTBF for 'sleep 500y' on a mainframe is higher than on commodity x86 hardware.