Dan Stromberg 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?
In the clustering world, active/active means 2 or more servers are active at a time, either operating on separate data (and thus acting as passive failover partners to each other), or operating on the same data (which requires the use of a cluster filesystem or other similar mechanism to allow coherent simultaneous access to the data).
2) Know why active/passive might be preferred over active/active?
Well, if you're talking about active/passive vs. active/active with a cluster filesystem or such, the active/passive is tons easier to implement and get right. Plus, depending on your application, the added complexity of a cluster filesystem might not actually buy you much more than you could get with, say, NFS or Samba (CIFS).
-- Paul - 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
