My vote would be for active/active, its usually more reliable and of
course it builds in better scaleability. I imagine the the main
question of everyone will be how the choice of active/active or
active/passive will effect cost/time of implementation.
L
On Sep 17, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Ken Murchison wrote:
David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have redundancy then the next enhancement is
going to be to teach murder about it so that it can failover to the
backup box(s) as needed, but for now simply having the full data at
the backup location would be so far ahead of where we are now that
the need to reconfigure murder for a failover is realitivly trivial
by comparison.
Actually what I was really asking, is are people looking for an
active-active config and an active-passive config?
--
Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
