On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 13:08 -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 03/15/2013 12:59 PM, GGS (linux ha) wrote: > > > 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. > > Yeah, I suspected something like that. Hopefully I won't ever need to > know. ;-)
Actually is not serious like that, it's more of a legal, standard corporate structure. It would be better if they made it available for public discussion so that ideas could fly more freely. You guys could probably see something simple that we are missing. Oh well... that's a whole other tangent. > > (I'd still argue that a full vm solution should have less maintenance > overhead in the long run -- or at least it looks that way now.) Virtualization has a huge penalty on performance, specially at the IO level. At another place we do Xen and KVM with up to 40 VMs/server and when there is any kind of IO (disk specially) going on things slow down to a crawl. Once I learn pacemaker I think things will be much better :-) Alberto _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
