On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 13:51 -0400, Paul Clements wrote: > Dan Stromberg wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 20:54 -0400, Paul Clements wrote: > > > What it is about active/passive that is so much easier to implement than > > active/active? > > There's nothing that difficult about active/active, assuming you're > talking about the servers operating on separate (or static) data. What's > difficult is the cluster filesystem. Those tend to be big pieces of > low-level (read, kernel) code, and they require a distributed lock > manager and a membership model, which are also generally implemented > in-kernel. > > Of course, without knowing the context of the speaker's reference to > this, it's hard to say exactly what he meant or if it's even remotely > related to what I'm talking about... :) Is the difficulty mostly stemming from keeping stateful sessions and content consistent across replica servers?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
