blynch at ameliaschools.com
Fri Feb 5 13:01:11 UTC 2010
On Thu, February 4, 2010 6:34 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 2/4/2010 3:17 PM, Bo Lynch wrote:
>> Right know we have about 30 or so linux servers scattered through out or
>> district. Was looking at ways of consolidating and some sort of
>> would be nice.
>> Will clustering not work with certain apps? We have a couple mysql
>> oracle database, smb shares, nfs, email, and web servers.
> Each app has it's own best way to provide the redundancy and
> auto-failover and it's own set of tradeoffs of the added complexity vs.
> the possible reduced downtime if the primary fails.
> I'd balance the options against the low-tech method of having raid
> mirrors in swappable bays with a spare similar server chassis or two
> around plus regular backups kept at a different location. The raid lets
> you continue in the likely event of a disk failure so you can repair it
> at a convenient time. Other failures (motherboard, power supply) are
> less likely but can be handled by swapping the drives into an alternate
> chassis (and with Centos you'll need to re-assign the IP addresses that
> are tied to the old NIC mac addresses) with a small amount of downtime.
> And the backups cover things like operator or software errors (that
> would wipe a cluster too) or a building-level disaster that destroys the
> disks or the primary and spare chassis at the same time. Some apps may
> be worth the effort to do better.
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell at gmail.com
Currently we are doing the low tech method. Daily and weekly backups both
onsite and off along with RAID and all that other good stuff. I was just
wondering if clustering was a better way of handling things. Thanks for
More information about the CentOS