On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, 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?
I think that everyone would love to have the active-active option, the problem I have with this is that the active-passive config will solve many peoples problems and I believe that is will be far simpler to do so I don't want the ideal goal of active-active to end up side tracking the huge progress that would be achieved by active-passive.
active-active also requires significantly different choices if the nodes are seperated by significant distances. I'd hate to end up with an active-active solution that works only with the machines all local and still have no solution to the disaster recovery senerio.
David Lang
-- There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C.A.R. Hoare --- 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
