On Tuesday 22 Jul 2014 19:04:03 Ralph Corderoy wrote:
No, you mean like a hot spare for failover when the primary goes kaput,
or even better, a cluster (of two) fileservers that are in sync and
share the load, read and write.
This is all still uncertain. It now appears that the current system has two
servers, each running the same software and receiving the same data streams,
but connected to different networks. The clients are split between the two, so
(presumably) there are two clients dealing with each subset of data.
Lots need to be found out here. Do you have to fit in with the existing
protocol from the clients, i.e. you're replacing just the servers? Do
the clients know which of the two servers to contact and learn when they
should switch, or is that transparent to them? Do both servers serve
requests, or just the primary? Perhaps the primary handles read and
write but the secondary just does reads.
We have to replace everything.
Are you aware of the Linux HA project, high availability. That's the
term often used to describe failover systems. There's lots out there on
it. If just two servers are needed then a shared hardware solution is
possible. Or pure software solutions on commodity hardware can be done.
It's a big area! Examples,
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/power/en/ps4q00_linux?c=us
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustre_%28file_system%29
Thanks for the links.
We are trying to find how the current system does it.
I think that's key. It may well be, especially if it's a bit old, that
it's more simplistic than its grand description and that would lessen
what you need to do.
See above. However, there is uncertainty whether the new requirement is more
onerous than the existing one.
We hope to find out more by Monday.
--
Terry Coles
--
Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2014-08-05 20:00
Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/
New thread on mailing list: mailto:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk
How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
