Resilient VMS server config
From: Chris Hale (catsoup57_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/06/04
- Next message: John Gemignani, Jr.: "Re: Ucx v4.0, network_mask set to 255.255.252.0 doesn't save."
- Previous message: Andrew Harrison: "Re: Time to patch OpenVMS - DCE-RPC buffer overflow"
- Next in thread: Nic Clews: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Reply: Nic Clews: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Reply: Jan-Erik Söderholm: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Maybe reply: Main, Kerry: "RE: Resilient VMS server config"
- Reply: Michael Austin: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 6 Aug 2004 04:48:11 -0700
Hi all,
I could do with some advice regards a highly resilient server/cluster.
We have an application which is not processor intensive, and it does
not require huge amounts of disk space. In fact we have had it running
on an Alpha1000 with 2.1G disks without any problems.
However we need replace old hardware and to ensure that it is highly
available.
At the moment its running on a cluster of 4 Alpha's with shared SCSI
disks between each pair of nodes, and host based volume shadowing.
We are now proposing a pair of DS25's with a SAN providing the
storage, and possibly host based volume shadowing across logical
volumes provided by the SAN. The logical volumes themselves can then
be members of a raid array or mirror. The proposed cluster
interconnect would be fibre, with an Ethernet backup.
As well as any general advice or comments, could anyone address the
following:
1. Should we bother with host based volume shadowing, when the SAN
provides raid or mirrors?
2. Does a SAN help with image backups whilst maintaining the
availability of the disk? For example can we take a 'snapshot' of a
volume with very little loss of availability of the volume?
3. The application does not require a cluster, but is able to failover
to another node. Is there a good reason to go for three nodes instead
of two?
4. Can anyone comment on the reliability of SAN solutions?
Any help of advice would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Chris.
- Next message: John Gemignani, Jr.: "Re: Ucx v4.0, network_mask set to 255.255.252.0 doesn't save."
- Previous message: Andrew Harrison: "Re: Time to patch OpenVMS - DCE-RPC buffer overflow"
- Next in thread: Nic Clews: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Reply: Nic Clews: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Reply: Jan-Erik Söderholm: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Maybe reply: Main, Kerry: "RE: Resilient VMS server config"
- Reply: Michael Austin: "Re: Resilient VMS server config"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|