From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro
Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
It does seem like every application has its own unique approach to
clustering. There is no generalized solution.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu)
b...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro
Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
It does seem like every application
Bill Bogstad wrote:
An application that does little IO, has a high memory footprint,
and modifies all of it between IO requests would make for very
expensive checkpointing. Every checkpoint could require transferring
multiple gigabytes of modified RAM. A CPU can dirty RAM way faster
then
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro
It does seem like every application has its own unique approach to
clustering. There is no generalized solution.
This is one of the reasons why I'm much more strongly
Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
It does seem like every application has its own unique approach to
clustering. There is no generalized solution.
This is one of the reasons why I'm much more strongly inclined toward
HA at the hypervisor. ...if you do HA at
the hypervisor,
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Tom Metro tmetro+...@gmail.com wrote:
It does seem like every application has its own unique approach to
clustering.
or, for legacy applications, their own assumptions that need to be worked
around with kludges to repackage for HA.
--
Bill
@n1vux
