On Sep 7, 2013, at 19:24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html > > *Do not do this* with write access repositories, is my advice from knowledge > of NFS filesystems. Writes, and partial writes, can occur from one host for > the next "commit" but not actually be seen on the next "round robin" server > until a fairly arbitrary amount of time later, due to propagation delays > inherent in NFS. There's a lot tht NFS can do well, but this is not one of > those tasks. > > I'd really encourage you, for commercial graide high availability or load > distribution, to look at WanDisco's "Multi-Site" or to use a failover load > balancer setup. If server 1 goes toes up, serer 2 is available, and handles > all the traffic. But mixing and matching back and forth randomly as can > happen with round-robin? That sounds like a dangerous idea likely to bite you > at really, really bad moments due to simultaneous commits through two > different NFS enabled front ends.
It sounds like a great idea, *if* you are using a SAN with a cluster filesystem, such as Apple's Xsan. NFS is not a cluster filesystem so that would not be a good idea.
