Subject | Re: FB and high availability / clustering solutions |
---|---|
Author | Robby |
Post date | 2004-06-28T23:48:36Z |
James,
Thanks for the reply. From your description and their site, that
tool sounds just like an open-source tool called "heartbeat" that
we're most likely going with... (see www.linux-ha.org). Good to hear
that that kind of solution works for you.
Robby
--- In Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com, James Gill <jnngill@y...>
wrote:
Thanks for the reply. From your description and their site, that
tool sounds just like an open-source tool called "heartbeat" that
we're most likely going with... (see www.linux-ha.org). Good to hear
that that kind of solution works for you.
Robby
--- In Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com, James Gill <jnngill@y...>
wrote:
> I have found that clustering for fail over reasons is
> very easy with Firebird but does take both time and
> money. The easiest way to go about it is to use a
> program from Veritas called veritas cluster server
> (VCS). The program basically watches a process using
> any number of different scripts testing for things
> such as the process being present network
> connectivity. Once VCS detects a problem with the
> primary server it attempts to shutdown the active
> process and handover the virtual IP address of the
> service to the fail over system. Once the process has
> been shutdown the LUN is umounted from the primary
> server and mounted on the fail over server. The last
> thing it does is start the process on the fail over
> server in our case a Firebird classic server. All and
> all the fail over takes anywhere from 1 to 2 minutes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James Gill
> --- Phil Shrimpton <phil@s...> wrote:
> > On Monday 28 June 2004 18:41, Ann W. Harrison wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, why are you interested in a
> > clustering
> > > solution rather than a multi-processor w/ high
> > performance
> > > disks?
> >
> > I am not the original poster, but as most of our
> > customers are moving
> > to/insiding on a clustered environment, I will give
> > their reasons. Those
> > being failover and load balancing, with performance
> > being lower down the list
> > (in fact they are happier with a lower performance
> > in exchange for
> > failover/balancing). A mutilprocessor machine with
> > fast disks only gives you
> > performance, and not the other two.
> >
> > When clustering has come up on the lists before, the
> > general responce
> > (including Jim's) has been "throw more hardware at
> > it", but performance is
> > generally not the issue looking to be solved when
> > people want a clustering
> > solution.
> >
> > Phil
> > --
> > Discover a lost art - play
> > Marbles
> > May 2004
> >
> > www.marillion.com
> > ICQ: 760757 | AIM: pjshrimpton | Y!: pjshrimpton |
> > pjshrimpton@j...
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> > Subscribe:
> > Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe:
> > Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > List owner:
> > Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> >
> >
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-general
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail