On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 10:16 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > 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. So it's basically trunking for performance vs. failover? > > > > 2) Know why active/passive might be preferred over active/active? > > No idea. Gee, I sure wish I had more context on this. I suspect it was something he skipped past pretty quickly, and I was hard pressed to type everything into my PDA.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
