|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <EB8B1BF1-78F1-4A1B-A477-8B7C30C3D218@arbor.net> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:36:06 -0400 From: William Herrin <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com> To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Roland Dobbins<rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote: > Active/passive is an obsolete 35-year-old mainframe paradigm, and it > deserves to die the death. =A0With modern technology, there's just really= no > excuse not to go active/active, IMHO. Roland, Sometimes you're limited by the need to use applications which aren't capable of running on more than one server at a time. In other cases, its obscenely expensive to run an application on more than one server at a time. Nor is the split-brain problem in active/active systems a trivial one. There are still reasons for using active/passive configurations, but be advised that active/active solutions have a noticeably better success rate than active/passive ones. Regards, Bill Herrin --=20 William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |