Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Carson Gaspar wrote: > --On Saturday, July 29, 2006 9:15 PM +0100 Luciano Miguel Ferreira > Rocha <strange at nsk.no-ip.org> wrote: >> You're distributing your load between two machines. That's a good >> thing to do. An otherwise idle server will be put to good use instead >> of just waiting for the other to fail. I see no drawback, only >> benefits, assuming that there's no convoluted dependency between >> them. > The main drawback is: what happens when one server fails? Can a single > server handle the full load previously handled by 2 servers? You > _must_ over-provision if you want services to stay fully functional in > fail-over mode. If one server can't handle the load in active/standby, > then it can't handle the load in active/failed. Now in many cases > being up but slow is better than being down, but be _very_ sure you > understand the risk decision you're making. Yes, I understand what we are trying to do and I understand these risks and drawbacks as well. We would be more happy to give two (or more) machines to one service (say HTTP with Apache), both fully functional with read *and* write possibilities and load ballance between them. But AFAIK this is not possible with any currently available Linux open-source software, nor with DRBD. Any suggestions are welcome. -- /\ Ondrej Jombik - nepto at platon.sk - http://nepto.sk - ICQ #122428216 //\\ Platon Group - open source software development - http://platon.sk //\\ 10 types of people: those who understand binary & those who do not