>Do you want both servers to be "active" at the same time? When one talks >about a "cluster" that is normally what they mean. Basically, a cluster >being a group of machines acting as if they were one. Or are you just >looking at "fail-over"? I guess I'm not sure yet. Would one advantage of fail over be that I could use the second server as a data backup only? I kind of like that idea, I could use the second server as data backup but if I ever need to use it as a full server I would have that option too. But on the other hand if I buy a tape backup I could have both servers active. I think I'm leaning toward the active setup, have not decided on that yet. >You also indicated that the servers will be geographically seperate. By >how far and what kind of bandwidth will they have between them? That's the big question. Could two servers be hundreds or even thousands of miles apart in an active setup? If they were in an active setup, would I have to make special arrangements with both co location facilities to have a T1 or preferable a 10 MBS connection between the two? Like some kind of a tunnel? Or virtual private network? If I were to set that up myself between the two servers I assume I would be paying high bandwidth costs. So would it be cheaper to have both units on the same LAN? I guess the only reason why I was thinking about putting them in different locations, is if I ever want to change co lo service due to better pricing or network trouble at one facility or whatever, I could ship one of the two active servers to the new facility, transfer DNS info and then when the domains propagate, I could move the other one to the same facility. That way there would be no interruption in service. Or is this just an overkill to make my servers more "portable"? DB -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
