Re: High Availability / Clustering

[Lee <lee_hoffman@brown.edu>]

> > 4) 1 Master Server Cluster using shared storage: This seems like the
> > only viable solutions.
>
> If you honestly believe this, then your definition of "high 
> availability" is
> somewhat different from the rest of the world's. Putting a bunch of 
> front
> ends onto a single shared data-store does not give high availability. 
> It
> practically assures lower availability, because your shared storage is 
> now a
> single point of failure. If it goes down, it doesn't matter how many 
> servers
> are in your cluster, they're all hosed. This idea is pure folly. There 
> are of
> course valid reasons for using tightly coupled server clusters with 
> shared
> storage, but high availabilty is definitely not one of them.

When I said shared storage, i meant two redundant SANs each cross 
connected to all the cluster boxes, which removes all single sources of 
failure.

L