Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on October 03, 2006 06:27 AM
Isn't a failover cluster going to leave half the hardware of a 2-node cluster basically unused for 99.9% of the time? What I'd like to see is a balanced cluster rather than a failover one to make more efficient use of hardware.
Also, when are distros actually going to include easy-to-setup cluster-balancing software (e.g. a clustered file system that *doesn't* require a shared SCSI drive [and that doesn't mean NFS either], balancing for front-end Web servers and balancing for back-end databases). It is *ridiculous* that trying to set up a balanced LAMP scenario is so manual and hacky in this day and age.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Why not balanced instead of failover?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 03, 2006 06:27 AMAlso, when are distros actually going to include easy-to-setup cluster-balancing software (e.g. a clustered file system that *doesn't* require a shared SCSI drive [and that doesn't mean NFS either], balancing for front-end Web servers and balancing for back-end databases). It is *ridiculous* that trying to set up a balanced LAMP scenario is so manual and hacky in this day and age.
#