Frank Cusack wrote: ...[snip James McPherson's objections to PMC]
I understand the objection to mickey mouse configurations, but I don't understand the objection to (what I consider) simply improving safety.
...
And why should failover be limited to SC? Why shouldn't VCS be able to play? Why should SC have secrets on how to do failover? After all, this is OPENsolaris. And anyway many homegrown solutions (the kind I'm familiar with anyway) are of high quality compared to commercial ones.
Frank, this isn't a SunCluster vs VCS argument. It's an argument about * doing cluster-y stuff with the protection that a cluster framework provides versus * doing cluster-y stuff without the protection that a cluster framework provides If you want to use VCS be my guest, and let us know how it goes. If you want to use a homegrown solution, then please let us know what you did to get it working, how well it copes and how you are addressing any data corruption that might occur. I tend to refer to SunCluster more than VCS simply because I've got more in depth experience with Sun's offering. James C. McPherson _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
