Funding Cyrus High Availability
lee_hoffman at brown.edu
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-- 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
More information about the Info-cyrus