Hello Mattias, Saturday, November 15, 2008, 12:24:05 AM, you wrote:
MP> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 00:46, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Adam Leventhal wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:25PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> That is _not_ active-active, that is active-passive. >>>> >>>> If you have a active-active system I can access the same data via both >>>> controllers at the same time. I can't if it works like you just >>>> described. You can't call it active-active just because different >>>> volumes are controlled by different controllers. Most active-passive >>>> RAID controllers can do that. >>>> >>>> The data sheet talks about active-active clusters, how does that work? >>>> >>> >>> What the Sun Storage 7000 Series does would more accurately be described >>> as >>> dual active-passive. >>> >> >> This is ambiguous in the cluster market. It is common to describe >> HA clusters where each node can be offering services concurrently, >> as active/active, even though the services themselves are active/passive. >> This is to appease folks who feel that idle secondary servers are a bad >> thing. MP> But this product is not in the cluster market. It is in the storage market. MP> By your definition virtually all dual controller RAID boxes are active/active. MP> You should talk to Veritas so that they can change all their documentation... MP> Active/active and active/passive has a real technical meaning, don't MP> let marketing destroy that! I thought that when you can access the same LUN via different controller then you have a symmetric disk array and when you can't you have an asymmetric one. It has nothing to do with active-active or active-standby. Most of a disk arrays in the marked are active-active and asymmetric. -- Best regards, Robert Milkowski mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
