Funding Cyrus High Availability

Lee lee_hoffman at
Fri Sep 17 14:15:25 EDT 2004

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.


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--

Cyrus Home Page:
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ:
List Archives/Info:

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list