-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I am sure someone could make the argument that if the cache were designed suitably, it wouldn't need to send out packets because it wouldn't die in the first place. Or further, wouldn't need load balancing from a switch because it would have a suitable mechanism of capacity planning the traffic itself.
Can you let us know when you found nirvana?
I can think of an example where the disk might partially fail and WCCP packets would still be sent out.
If the disk partially fails, operation of a cache engine would be interrupted. This should result in the router excluding this particular cache engine from WCCP as a fail-safe mode. If not, the software needs a simple sanity check to shut itself down (forcing WCCP into a "standby mode" for this cache engine entity to allow for a "limp home" mode). This has nothing to do with WCCP itself.
But of course, no one implements technology today before its been thoroughly matured with a million years of uptime.
Of course. Cheers, Chris - -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@adsu.bellsouth.com> -wk ck@gnu.org -hm Sr. Network Architect, BellSouth Corp., Advanced Data Services NOTE: "We speak PGP: key available at well-known key servers." "Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its electrical cord." -- /usr/games/fortune -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNkovX4RXnO1Cm58sEQIuNwCg67PQgs2cx8BK4vZhJI2o02d2I5EAn2Zn I/8uPLrmuEre87DzhuZl/SxW =+40b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----