Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:38:32 +0300 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> To: mexas@bristol.ac.uk Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, allanjude@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cluster FS? Message-ID: <201E3A2E-B33D-4C63-AD81-8FFD5C2E0ED7@mail.turbofuzz.com> In-Reply-To: <201410010902.s9192Lhb084232@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <201410010902.s9192Lhb084232@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> = wrote: >=20 > So are you saying that the SAN model > is not good for active/active failover > with multiple nodes? Correct. SAN is active/passive. For more information on high availability solutions, I suggest you check = out the big file server vendors - there=E2=80=99s far more pertinent = information in their various whitepapers then you=E2=80=99ll ever get on = freebsd-hackers. :) - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201E3A2E-B33D-4C63-AD81-8FFD5C2E0ED7>