[ale] Redundant File Servers

[kevinostoll at yahoo.com (Kevin O'Neill Stoll)]

Specifics:

Either configuration really, active-passive would meet the
failover requirement but ideally if I could have
active-active, which I'm sure is more difficult, that would
be better.

As for service offering, just SAMBA at this point.

--- Chris Ricker <kaboom at gatech.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Kevin O'Neill Stoll wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I have been doing some research about either:
> > a failover pair of fileservers, possibly load-balanced
> > across the pair 
> > or 
> > a high-availability load-balanced cluster of file
> servers
> 
> More specifics:
> 
> * do you want active-active (both nodes serving) or
> active-passive (one node 
> takes over when the other dies)
> * fileserving how? NFS? AFS? Samba? ftp? web?
> 
> later,
> chris
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> 


=====
Kevin Stoll
http://kevinstoll.com/

OpenSource Software...FREE!
Angering Bill Gates...priceless.
============================================================


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com