Re: [cobalt-users] Failover and the Linux High Availabilty project

[Chuck <nagy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Kris Dahl wrote:

> on 6/28/00 4:32 PM, Chip at chip@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > Hi folks.
> > 
> > Has anyone actually implemented the Linux-HA code on a Raq?  From a brief
> > glance, it appears that it would work, but it would be nice to know if
> > someone out there has already done it  and could share their experience
> > with it :)
> 
> For the best bang for your buck, I would just get a single server with
> decent availibility and reliability features--something like a Sun Netra, HP
> LPr, or IBM Netfinity.  Get it with RAID 5 or 50.  And I'd put it in a
> high-end datacenter (like InterNAP, or perhaps Exodus). 

Raid 5 or 50 machines are typically much more expensive than 2 machines
without RAID (everything else equal). You can load balance 2 boxes for
$4000 with TurboLinux cluster server. You can also configure Linux to do
that yourself (a good occupation if you have time on your hand ;)

> If you need to, buy
> a couple of the servers and put them behind like a F5 load balancer. 

An Altheon with 8 ports, each handling up to 254 machines is $13,000. It
does load balancing, failover, and SSL session management.

> This
> is the way it is done... I just haven't seen that many people trying to put
> low end servers in multiple locations and trying to load balance them.
> Although I suppose you could do it with like an DNS based load balancer (F5
> makes one).  

A software solution might be better for that situation. Resonate is a good
choice.

> But you still have the replication problems, and with most
> sites being heavliy database driven, you'll need that replication to be in
> real time.

That is why the resonate software starts at $13,000


--
"A piece of software is like a work of art: it has to be abandoned to be
finished."