Yoav Nir writes:
> I am not trying to create a complete taxonomy of cluster types.
I think it is worth adding more defined terms, just to show which we
are not talking about too.
> I should also note that we don't really have a term for a single
> "thing" that does IKE and IPsec. Our documents u
Hi Dan
I am not trying to create a complete taxonomy of cluster types. I should also
note that we don't really have a term for a single "thing" that does IKE and
IPsec. Our documents use terms like "gateway" and "peer", but "gateway" does
not encompass VPN clients and hosts, and "peer" is not j
+1
I agree with Dan.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> On Tue, March 23, 2010 7:24 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> "hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
> >> little bu
On Tue, March 23, 2010 11:46 pm, Dan Harkins wrote:
> Of course it's not the only reason. But you're missing the point. The
> point is that the reason doesn't matter! You want to describe a particular
> reason-- the "master" crashed and all state went over to the "hot
> standby"--
> not the gener
On Tue, March 23, 2010 7:24 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> "hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
>> little but waiting for another box to fail ("standby"). It's the VRRP
>> model.
>
> And that's exactly w
On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> "hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
> little but waiting for another box to fail ("standby"). It's the VRRP
> model.
And that's exactly what I want to describe. Well, not twiddling its thumbs. The
Hi,
"hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
little but waiting for another box to fail ("standby"). It's the VRRP
model.
There is a HA model which supports dynamic load balancing as well as
active session failover. Nodes in such a cluster are not "standby". T
On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> - For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I propose
>> "hot-standby cluster"
>> - For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I propose to
>> keep "load-sharing cl
On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
- For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I propose
"hot-standby cluster"
- For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I
propose to
keep "load-sharing cluster"
On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
> - For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I propose
> "hot-standby cluster"
> - For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I propose to
> keep "load-sharing cluster"
I think "failover" is in broader use than "hot st
On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
- For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I
propose "hot-standby cluster"
- For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I
propose to keep "load-sharing cluster"
Is this fine with everyone?
I'm good with that,
And thank you for taking the time, Rod.
The linktionary has a pretty good definition, though I don't know if it counts
as "textbook". Same for Wikipedia
http://www.linktionary.com/f/fault_tolerance.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault-tolerant_system
Anyway, we need to limit the scope of this
12 matches
Mail list logo
