This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
connection take-over for backup/always on system
two systems running simultaneously with the same software (perhaps virtually on the same system?) and sending and retrieving the same data to enable the possibility of not losing a connection.
a third connection (the user's view) will then never be interrupted while updates are installed, instead it will be seam-less in the background.
to explain in a little more detail:
one system runs as normal, while another duplicate system runs in the background. a third 'view' or 'user' system views whichever system is currently active, so that when updates, installations, or changes are happening that usually happen automatically are applied to one system, the view/user system switches to the system where no changes are being applied, waits for the original system to apply changes, and if successful, then switch the user/view system to the new updated system.
currently opened websites or files would be saved and re-opened during the switch, so there would still be a delay while the switch occurs, but much, much less of a delay than waiting for the system to reboot and apply updates.
if a major failure or unwanted change occurs in the duplicate system, changes can simply not be applied.
when updates are being required to be applied more and more frequently, and security patches needing to be applied due to the growing market of hacking-related industries, this is a solution, that is, if it doesn't already exist. (?)
Closing Statement from griffin tucker
Zdenek Smith's referral to cloud computing could actually mean the withdrawal for this type of idea on the client end once all data and even programs are run externally, plus the replication of servers and other forms of redundancy could also mean there's no need for this idea at all.
for more information on a completely-cloud-based operating system, check the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS
Sidharth Hariharan
griffin tucker 10+
sometimes system updates require the currently running application to be switched off and restarted due to reliance on parent processes of the currently running application, so the idea is to replicate the entire operating system - which isn't much these days in relativity terms of how much storage can be purchased.
Sidharth Hariharan
As per the core discussion yes storeage can be bought but see I've a 500gb external HDD which is about be get filled and had to delete a lot of movie :( so better than thinking of backup think about compact storage..
Zdenek Smith 100+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
griffin tucker 10+
what i'm talking about it is a local system - just like the computer sitting in front of you or me, so that seamless integration into computer usage doesn't involve "please wait, loading..."
Zdenek Smith 100+
Locally one can use RAID system which is a set of hard drives that have redundancy added. =)
griffin tucker 10+
if gmail is considered a cloud computing service, then the system i am talking about would ensure a failed update can be easily reverted.
on a local system, what i mean is the ability to apply 0day or perhaps even 0min security flaw patches in the background seam-lessly. perhaps there's even an operating system that does this already? if there is, i'd like to know about it.