Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:02:21 +0100 (BST) From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> To: jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com, mexas@bristol.ac.uk Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, allanjude@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cluster FS? Message-ID: <201410010902.s9192Lhb084232@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <A70BA2F6-5EC6-490C-B012-D35A54D5FA9D@mail.turbofuzz.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com Wed Oct 1 09:26:57 2014 > >You are trying to create an active/active fail-over system with multiple modes. You cannot get there from where you are starting. This is basically a “start over” proposition, and why folks like NetApp and EMC sell a lot of fileservers to replace existing SAN solutions. So are you saying that the SAN model is not good for active/active failover with multiple nodes? Clearly if SAN itself fails, then the data is not accessible. From what I understand, in really mission critical systems people use multiple SANs with multiple nodes, with some extra data synchronisation mechanisms between those multiple SANs. Are you saying there are better solutions for high availability? Thanks Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201410010902.s9192Lhb084232>