[ale] Redundant File Servers

[Chris Ricker]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Kevin O'Neill Stoll wrote:

> Specifics:
> 
> Either configuration really, active-passive would meet the
> failover requirement but ideally if I could have
> active-active, which I'm sure is more difficult, that would
> be better.
> 
> As for service offering, just SAMBA at this point.

For active-active Samba on Linux, the only setup I know of is the Red Hat
Cluster using GFS over a SAN

For active-passive, DRBD works great and the price is right

If you really want active-active, be prepared to spend a lot ;-). Also, be 
extremely sure you know exactly what you're buying. HA terminology tends to 
vary in meaning from vendor to vendor. For example, Steeleye has what they 
call an active-active cluster, but what they mean by that is something 
conceptually like:

* node1 is running Samba
* node2 is running Apache
* if either node dies, both apps run on the other node

later,
chris