On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 12:32 -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 03/15/2013 11:55 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > ... > > Right. Thankfully, we already have that, it's called pacemaker ;-) > > Which brings me back to my original problem with the concept: I can > think of only one reason to "failover" services (as opposed to > hardware), and that is your daemons are crashing all the time during > normal operation. If I needed a solution for that, HA would be fairly > low on my list of things to look at.
You need to look back at the original description I gave. These are not your typical web stack or back office apps. We do have them running for years without failures/crashes, but in the 24x7 environment they are in we try to minimize the risk of downtime regardless. Unfortunately I'm not at liberty to discuss the full architecture or what they are doing without written permission, which would make it clear why we are going the path we are. Alberto _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
