From owner-freebsd-cluster  Wed Mar  6  7:47:58 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org
Received: from gate.nentec.de (gate2.nentec.de [194.25.215.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6D237B419
	for <freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed,  6 Mar 2002 07:47:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nenny.nentec.de (root@nenny.nentec.de [153.92.64.1])
	by gate.nentec.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13751;
	Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:47:50 +0100
Received: from andromeda (andromeda [153.92.64.34])
	by nenny.nentec.de (8.11.3/8.11.3/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id g26Flkh10020;
	Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:47:46 +0100
Message-ID: <XFMail.020306164742.sporner@nentec.de>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on Linux
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0203060821500.7642-100000@snaresland.acl.lanl.gov>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:47:42 +0100 (MET)
Reply-To: Andy Sporner <sporner@nentec.de>
Organization: NENTEC Netywerktechnologie GmbH
From: Andy Sporner <sporner@nentec.de>
To: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
Subject: RE: FreeBSD Cluster at SLU
Cc: Jason Fried <jfried@cluster.nix.selu.edu>,
	freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-perl11-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-cluster.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-cluster>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-cluster>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Within reason I agree...  However having things in one place defeats the high
availabilty on a cluster, but we may be talking about different things here.  I
am looking at making Unix machines more reliable to get to 99.999% uptime. If
your configuration image is on machine, than you have no backups.  The cluster 
approach I designed has replication of configuration that covers this, so your
"Cluster Monitor" node can fail-over when that machine fails (should it...).





On 06-Mar-02 Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Andy Sporner wrote:
> 
>> Looks nice, but very Assymetric...
> 
> and that's good in a cluster. Assymetry is very very good. There is no
> need to so SSI on all the nodes in the cluster -- just the node you log
> into.
> 
> SSI on 1024 nodes is a huge mistake.
> 
> ron
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message