Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:19:50 +0100 From: Andy Sporner <sporner@nentec.de> To: freebsd-cluster <freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Clustering with FreeBSD Message-ID: <4028CC66.80300@nentec.de> References: <187a6c3bb6bd5002259b39e485140752@202.157.183.139> <4028A614.8030103@nentec.de> <20040210015115.C17961@knight.ixsystems.net> <1076410247.1150.28.camel@ip16.ops.uk.psi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, It is a different subject and I sort of hate threads that are misleading. So far it hasn't happened yet, but before it can. :-) The clustering that I am offering is *NOT* Beowulf-like. It is more geared towards Internet Application HA. In other words--server X dies, what should server Y and Z do to make sure that the stuff on server X does not have to wait for server X to recover. Somewhere else on my site I have a utility called FREP. In my test area in my lab I have the two things integrated. There is in Linux-Land a thing called sometime like "Remote raw disk" (can't remember specifically what it is called) but it gives a local device node for a remote device on another machine. What FREP does (at the moment only in the lab) is to syncronize access to directories and replicate the changes done by the nodes. The idea is to be able to have a 2-3 nodes running mail servers with the spool directories replicated (locking is on the file basis). A load balancer goes on the front and with this you have a scalabale Mail server that is fault resiliant. A lot of people in the academic community are worried about Beowulf and for correct reason, but there is an often neglected area which is where Micro$oft is winning in the moment and that is in the business end of the house. Cheers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4028CC66.80300>