Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:05 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> You rarely need to fail over to the passive system. > > > And management will never, ever let you do a full-up test, nor will they > allow you to spend the money to build a scaled-up system which can > handle the full load, because they can't stand the thought of hardware > sitting there gathering dust. > > Concur 100%. > > Active/passive is an obsolete 35-year-old mainframe paradigm, and it > deserves to die the death. With modern technology, there's just really > no excuse not to go active/active, IMHO. >
There's always one good reason: money. Some things just don't active/active nicely on a budget. Then you're trying to explain why you want to spend money on a SAN when they really want to spend the money on new "green" refrigerators. (That's not a joke, it really happened.) ~Seth
