> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Marco Peereboom > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:41 AM > To: knitti > Cc: Julian Smith; misc@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: Filesystem redundancy > > This is actually pretty common believe it or not. This does not > provide filesystem redundancy though. What this provides is a > mechanism to have multiple servers to touch the same disks. There > clearly is some danger here since you can't have multiple machines > touching the same filesystem. So what people tend to do is have some > sort of monitoring application check if the other machine is still > up; when it dies it simply takes over the filesystem from the failed > machine. > > There is even an opensource product called "Fail Safe" that provides > the monitoring app functionality. Last time I used it, it wasn't > very robust but it did have all the required knobs to make such a > thing work. > > /marco > > On Nov 16, 2005, at 7:35 AM, knitti wrote: > > > There are SCSI enclosures with the ability to connect to two different > > SCSI buses, so they can be accessed from two different machines. > > I _think_ the SCSI architecture could allow more than one host > > adapter on a bus. _But_ I never heard someone did this. I presume it > > would also depend on the host adapter and the driver. > > > > > > --knitti
Maybe OpenBSD can merge with OpenVMS, which should be easy given that four of the letters are already the same. OpenVMS has some amazing clustering capabilities.
