> And the UPS solution is a much better one. Again, in times past, there
> wasn't much point in keeping the system alive during a power failure,
> because all the users, who were probably in the same building, would also
> be without power. Today, just because I have a power failure here in
> Phoenix doesn't mean that my users in Darwin and Oxford are without
> power. To them, memory-only backup is no backup at all -- even if they
> want to hang around waiting for power to come back in Phoenix, their
> network connections will be gone when it does.
>
> Now that HP is implementing the facility to run a command when the UPS is
> about to shut down, it's even better. A memory-only backup facility is
> the same as a crash if the battery energy is depleted. Now, we can do an
> orderly shutdown before depletion.
>
> The only thing we lose is the ability to do that powerfail demo. Sure, it
> was fun, but this really is better for the users. It's a feature that
> used to distinguish the HP3000 from other systems, but it's a feature
> that's no longer needed.
>

Yes the UPS solution is better. Sure it doesn't do much for the local online
user who lost power at the same time the system did.

But lets not forget about those pesky batch jobs. A system that can resume
where it left off before a power failure can continue run batch jobs to
completion. And that still has serious value.

Doug.

Doug Werth                             Beechglen Development Inc.
[log in to unmask]                               Cincinnati, Ohio

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *