On Tuesday June 7, strombrg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > The lecturer at the recent NG storage talk at Usenix in Anaheim, > indicated that it was best to avoid "active/active" and get > "active/passive" instead. > > Does anyone: > > 1) Know what these things mean? There's not a lot of context, so it is hard to know. Could be talking about multi-path devices. e.g. you have two fibre-channel controllers which are each connected to the same drive (or set of drives). data/commands can be sent down either channel to the drives. active/active is where both (all) channels are actively in use (load balancing?). active/passive is where one is a warm-spare waiting to take over if the active one fails. > > 2) Know why active/passive might be preferred over active/active? No idea. NeilBrown > > If I had to guess, I'd say that active/active means that n servers are > all watching n-1 others to decide when they should jump to life, while > in active/passive perhaps 1 server is primary, and the passive nodes > only monitor that 1 server. Maybe? Just a totally wild guess based on > next to nothing. :) > > Thanks! > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
