On 3/14/12 12:43 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 03/14/2012 11:08 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: >> On 2012-03-14T11:41:53, William Seligman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm mindful of the issues involved, such as those Lars Ellenberg >>> brought up in his response. I need something that will failover with >>> a minimum of fuss. Although I'm encountering one problem after >>> another, I think I'm closing in on my goal. >> >> I doubt this is what you're getting. An active/passive fail-over >> configuration would likely save you tons of trouble and not perform >> worse, probably be faster for most workloads. > > Or if you look at it from another angle, if you can't configure your > resources to start properly at failover, what makes you think you can > configure a dual-primary any better?
I'll repeat the answer I gave in that other thread, for what it's worth: Consider two nodes in a primary-secondary cluster. Primary is running a resource. It fails, so the resource has to failover to secondary. Now consider a primary-primary cluster. Both run the same resource. One fails. There's no failover here; the other box still runs the resource. In my case, the only thing that has to work is cloned cluster IP address, and that I've verified to my satisfaction. -- Bill Seligman | Phone: (914) 591-2823 Nevis Labs, Columbia Univ | mailto://[email protected] PO Box 137 | Irvington NY 10533 USA | http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~seligman/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
