4 ms·
Actually, it would've been pretty reliable if it ran on an IBM mainframe. That's their entire selling point. There are two fundamental philosophies in fault to
by roncesvalles 4y ago
Actually, it would've been pretty reliable if it ran on an IBM mainframe. That's their entire selling point.
There are two fundamental philosophies in fault tolerant systems. One is designing fault-tolerant hardware and running non-fault-tolerant software on it. This is what mainframes do. Practically any component of a mainframe can be hotswapped without shutting down the OS.
The other is designing fault-tolerant software and running it on non-fault-tolerant ("commodity") hardware. The latter is so popular that it's pretty much the default now, but it's not the only way of doing things.
- krisoft 4y ago> Actually, it would've been pretty reliable if it ran on an IBM mainframe. How would an IBM mainframe help you with a corrupted database file? I understand that reliable hardware makes the corruption less likely to happen for hardware reasons, but it can also be the result of a software bug, or some unexpected and not correctly checked input.