Funding Cyrus High Availability

[Lee]

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