From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-28 14:44:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada From: The Ghost In The Machine Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP References: <9fa75d42.0304230439.55d28e70@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304240953.221ac70f@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304250448.5107afef@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304252116.621a4bf4@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304260649.366530c5@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304261803.5d26f40e@posting.google.com> X-face: "i;@/WO(?;[KC9sW;wG/4@H[_VFFH4?QHJ#O(?m}7fQMrJ,]0THA'\|e-EPG_>56Mi}_RRhBS'a2}u_7jm)0_+'=$V#E2r4#IQE/d)yMv3_4@hl<)mA&*tDN/ User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:42:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.86.253.2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1051566172 209.86.253.2 (Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:42:52 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:42:52 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62858 comp.object:62237 comp.lang.ada:36706 Date: 2003-04-28T21:42:52+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Wesley Groleau wrote on Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:40:55 -0500 : > Option three. Have a redundant system, hoping that > only one will crash at a time. Then network them > all together, so that the one that crashes will > take out the rest of them. :-) > I'll admit I wonder about this option, but, if one has a system that's down 10% of the time (90% uptime), one could in theory put 5 of those systems in back of a perfect loadserver (well, OK, it's only a theory!) and get 99.999% uptime -- the target for one of Microsoft's campaigns some time back. I think Windows can manage that, even if it crashes 3-4 times every 8-hour day: assuming a full reboot takes 2 minues, that would translate into 8 minutes down, out of 480 minutes, or a 98.3% uptime. Of course, the user having to use such a system may feel 90% aggravated... :-) Of course, if one system can take out the webfarm, all hope is lost. And Microsoft has introduced a new (or maybe not so new) idea: the "webgarden". This idea is to webfarms as threads are to processes, apparently. I'll leave the possible problems as an exercise for the interested reader... :-) ObAda: I'll admit the closest I've come thereto is Modula-2, and the closest I've come coding is Pascal. ObJava: JBOSS and Tomcat look like a webgarden to me, for example. :-) Apache does, too, as it can support multiple virtual hosts. -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.