On 2012-03-14T18:22:42, William Seligman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
There's still an outage while the replication and OCFS2 freeze until the
other side has been shot; OCFS2 then also needs to recover the journal
from the departing node before continuing. Depending on your service,
the service also needs to recover the data from the departed node.
So there's still a brief freeze. Yes, it may be minimally shorter than
an active/passive setup in the rare error case; but you're paying for
this with significantly increased complexity and probably reduced
performance during *normal* operation.
It's your call. And technically I enjoy the distributed active/active
stuff, it's lots of fun. I like solving problems. But I've seen not that
many scenarios where the complexity is warranted. (Databases or cloud
deployments being the rare exception.)
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
