If the links do not work for us for zk, then they are unlikely to work with
any other solution - such as trying to stretch Pacemaker or Red Hat Cluster
with their multicast protocols across the links.
If the links are not good enough, we might have to spend some more money to
On 8 March 2010 02:14, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you can stand the latency for updates then zk should work well for you.
> It is unlikely that you will be able to better than zk does and still
> maintain correctness.
> Do note that you can, probalbly bias client to use a local server. That
> should make things more efficient.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Mahadev Konar <maha...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> The inter-site links are a nuisance. We have two data-centres with 100Mb
>>> links which I hope would be good enough for most uses, but we need a 3rd
>>> site - and currently that only has 2Mb links to the other sites. This
>>> be a problem.