[ale] Redundant File Servers

[Kevin O'Neill Stoll]

Yeah, DRBD sounds the most promising thus far.

And you are right about terminology, I tend to think of an
active-passive setup as a failover pair not a ha setup, 
where as an ha setup would be scalable by just adding
another machine to an existing cluster of machines and load
balanced would be two or more active machines sharing
responsibility for the same type of service request.

Anyway, thanks all for the suggestions. My research now has
some specific direction to it.




--- Chris Ricker <kaboom at gatech.edu> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> 


=====
Kevin Stoll
http://kevinstoll.com/

OpenSource Software...FREE!
Angering Bill Gates...priceless.
============================================================


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail