That's not a bad idea, actually! On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 10:37, matthew sporleder wrote: > I didn't say move just the IP. Move the mount (via SAN or NAS) and the IP. > Take the -entire- application with you on failure. That way, you > don't have to worry about staying in-sync in real-time, which neither > slurpd nor syncrepl can guarantee. > > On 6/24/05, Digant C Kasundra <digant@uta.edu> wrote: > > Simply moving an virtual IP is insufficient. An app that needs to talk > > to the master will also likely want to make queries against it. So, in > > a failover setup, the secondary master has to stay in sync with the > > master. In other words, slurpd has to be replicating to it at all times > > and the secondary should not be replicating to anyone else (it should > > act as a slave). When the primary goes down, the secondary has to > > realize it is now in charge or replicating to the slaves. > > > > -- DK -- Digant C Kasundra Enterprise Operations and Systems Office of Information Technology University of Texas at Arlington Ph: 817-272-2208 GnuPG Public Key: http://omega.uta.edu/~digant/digant.gpg.asc To request technical support, please contact our computing Help Desk at 817-272-2208, e-mail helpdesk@uta.edu or create a work order at https://eservices.uta.edu/oitforms/workorder.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part