Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Redundant System

[David]

Hello,

I work daily with HA products used in business transactions (Oracle,  
Tibco). they get by with shared storage and state/heartbeat files  
etc...with two as a minimum.

If both autopilots had a process that both could access the same  
shared file it's possible to reliably determine if the other is  
"alive"...the failover one could take over should the primary go down.

So most apps I am familiar with require two and a shared file minimum  
so I am pretty sure it can be done with two.

- David Conger

On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:22 AM, antoine drouin <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hello World
>
> If you're going to make a redundant system, you need at least 3
> systems in order to be able to decide if one failed.
> You'll also need a way to switch actuators and other peripherals to
> the "good" instance of the autopilot.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Rui Costa<address@hidden>  
> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > It would be very nice to implement a redundant system control for the
> > paparazzi project.
> > A system with for example two TWOGs. In case of a twog failure the  
> > other one
> > assume the control.
> >
> > What do you think about it? It's difficult to design?
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Rui Costa
> > www.azoreanuav.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel