PS. in security handling everything at one (high) level is known as
"hard crunchy shell with soft chewy center". It's not seen as a good thing.
--
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 10/06/2016 11:25 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> But it is convenient because all layers on top can be completely
> agnostic of the duplicity.
It's also cheap: failing over a node, esp. when taking over involves
replaying a database log, or even just re-establishing a bunch of nfs
connections,
On 10/06/2016 09:26 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> Usually one - at least me so far - would rather think that having
> the awareness of redundany/cluster as high up as possible in the
> protocol/application-stack would open up possibilities for more
> appropriate reactions.
The obvious
Thanks for the confirmation Jan, but this sounds a bit scary to me !
Spinning this experiment a bit further ...
Would this not also mean that with a passive rrp with 2 rings it only takes 2
different nodes that are not able to communicate on different networks at the
same time to have all rings
