|
Ok, I understand the concepts now.. Sorry for being "in the dark".
Christopher.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne [mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 9:47 PM
To: Christopher Briggs; Stephen Zander; Jochen Tuchbreiter
Cc: Robert C.; lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: LVS use for mass-webhosting companys: Does it make sense ?
It is better for sharing html files, or non-DB files. If it is a DB file,
only one database server can write to it, until the first database server
totally release the control -- mainly the transaction log file, the 2nd DB
server can take over. But here when we talk about web servers,
web servers does not write to DB data file directly, rather it always
go through the DB server.
At 09:57 PM 4/14/00 -0400, Christopher Briggs wrote:
>Stephen, - and all.
>
>Being an HP admin by default, you kind of caught me by surprise when you
>said that:
>
>
> >> SCSI controllers, allow both controllers to connect to two
>servers and sharing the same file system. You can
>configure a LUN number on it and mount it on both
>servers.
>
>Are we suggesting that an admin could have DB files on an individual PV
>that is linked between two systems(easily done) and have them mounted
>at that same time without data corruption(didn't think this was possible -
>I am familiar with the concept of the 'devices' being visible from two
>systems,
>but I didn't think both could mounted without the ownership of one of those
>PV's or
>devices being marked inactive(ServiceGuard package failover for example).
>
>This is not a flame, so please excuse my ignorance..
>
>Christopher.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wayne [mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:02 PM
>To: Stephen Zander; Jochen Tuchbreiter
>Cc: Robert C.; lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: LVS use for mass-webhosting companys: Does it make sense ?
>
>
>Actually, HP has a device called "AutoRaid", it has dual
>SCSI controllers, allow both controllers to connect to two
>servers and sharing the same file system. You can
>configure a LUN number on it and mount it on both
>servers. Any change on one server will be visible
>by another server. It is not very expensive.
>
>At 01:42 PM 4/14/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > >>>>> "Jochen" == Jochen Tuchbreiter <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Jochen> I wonder if dual-homed-SCSI RAID solution will work fine
> > Jochen> with Software-RAID - does anyone have practical experience
> > Jochen> with this ? Dual-Homes SCSI sounds like a really
> > Jochen> interesting solution to me ...
> >
> >As a general comment, Dual-homed SCSI is *not* for the faint of heart.
> >You might as well go to gfs, although that still has major drwbacks in
> >the face of sytem failure.
> >
> >--
> >Stephen
> >
> >"A duck!"
> >
>
>
>
|
