Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:17:01 +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: <201410011017.s91AH1Lo084404@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <201E3A2E-B33D-4C63-AD81-8FFD5C2E0ED7@mail.turbofuzz.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com Wed Oct 1 10:42:50 2014 > > >> On Oct 1, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> So are you saying that the SAN model >> is not good for active/active failover >> with multiple nodes? > >Correct. SAN is active/passive. > >For more information on high availability solutions, I suggest you check out the big file server vendors - there’s far more pertinent information in their various whitepapers then you’ll ever get on freebsd-hackers. :) I thought HP was the "big fileserver vendor"... Also, the SAN array I'm using does support active/active model since 2006: http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~mexas/aa.pdf *quote* HP StorageWorks 1000 Modular Smart Array Announcing active/active support A recent web release of alternative MSA controller firmware includes important new features, including active/active controllers *end quote* Or am I confusing the issues again? Many thanks for your time. I do appreciate your replies. Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201410011017.s91AH1Lo084404>