Mark Giuffrida says:
> >I second the question; how are people dealing with this???
>
> Here at the ITD side of Univ of Michigan, we have a network topology
> that works better for the way these db servers work.
> We have a main FDDI backbone that connects all local lans together.
> We have all of our db servers and fileservers directly on the
> backbone. Since the backbone is so heavily relied upon for
> accessing services, if it goes down the user is generally in trouble
> anyways.
Rens has to worry about a firm in which there are many small sites
divided by distances that cannot be spanned with redundant FDDI --
some of the sites being overseas, for example. Reliability over the
extant redundant links is good but not perfect -- certainly not good
enough to bet the firm on, and a loss of connectivity would be
very bad given the current architecture.
There is a real need to be able to maintain multiple cells with shared
volumes. Administratively, these cells would be the same -- they would
only be different from the point of view of the db servers and their
quorum mechanism.
Perry
