Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!zurich.ai.mit.edu!jinx From: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Guillermo J. Rozas) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: SNAKE CLUSTER(?) Message-ID: Date: 16 May 91 03:57:36 GMT References: <1991Apr15.204425.8682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <5570633@hpfcdc.HP.COM> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Reply-To: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab. Lines: 26 In-reply-to: rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM's message of 14 May 91 23:06:02 GMT There have been things that HP-UX lacked in the past, like ARPA services, NFS, etc, all of which we now have. I missed those terribly, so I consider myself to be realistic in my expectations. But I've never had partitions on my workstation and I've never felt like I was missing out on anything (other than the missed pain of outgrown disk partitions, which I've managed to suplant with the pain of outgrown disks). That's a strange attitude that I've seen on comp.sys.hp a few times already. Just because you don't think something is useful or desirable, it does not mean that your customers will agree with you. Please let us make our own decisions by giving us the functionality and perhaps some caveats about why we should think hard before we use the facility. As someone already suggested, there are multiple reasons why we may want them. You may not agree that the solution we desire is the best for our situation, but that is for us to decide, not you. In our case, we happen to have an application that can manage its own disk, so we have to have two disks on every machine that want to be able to use it in this mode. Since buying two disks for each workstation is not necessarily feasible, partitions would come in handy.