[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: Active/Active servers

To: "Clowser, Jeff (Contractor)" <jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com>
Subject: RE: Active/Active servers
From: John Madden <jmadden@ivytech.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:03:01 -0500
Cc: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>, openldap-software@openldap.org, "Taymour A. El Erian" <taymour.elerian@tedata.net>, Buchan Milne <bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net>
In-reply-to: <C65F80C878CCF24A9BC19646DE2DCA62C34DE9@EXVG.fanniemae.com>
References: <4757E114.5020501@tedata.net> <200712061956.16363.bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net><47583CA9.9000505@symas.com> <1196966334.23551.187.camel@localhost.localdomain> <C65F80C878CCF24A9BC19646DE2DCA62C34DE9@EXVG.fanniemae.com>

> Only change to this comment I would make is:  rather than an
> active/active master cluster, I'd have it active/hot standby (i.e. the
> VIP on the load balancer only directs connections to one master, and
> fails over to the other master if that one is unavailable rather than
> balancing connections between the two masters all the time, to
> avoid/minimize write conflicts).

Good point, I hadn't considered write conflicts.  Active/passive of
course won't provide you the read performance of active/active/LB, but I
doubt that's really the concern here anyway.

John



-- 
John Madden
Sr. UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
jmadden@ivytech.edu

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Active/Active servers
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>

References:
- Active/Active servers
  - From: "Taymour A. El Erian" <taymour.elerian@tedata.net>
- Re: Active/Active servers
  - From: Buchan Milne <bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net>
- Re: Active/Active servers
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: Active/Active servers
  - From: John Madden <jmadden@ivytech.edu>
- RE: Active/Active servers
  - From: "Clowser, Jeff (Contractor)" <jeff_clowser@fanniemae.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Active/Active servers
Next by Date: Re: chain and ppolicy question
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread