Facility wide DR/Continuity

William Herrin herrin-nanog at dirtside.com
Wed Jun 3 15:36:06 UTC 2009

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Roland Dobbins<rdobbins at arbor.net> wrote:
> Active/passive is an obsolete 35-year-old mainframe paradigm, and it
> deserves to die the death.  With modern technology, there's just really no
> excuse not to go active/active, IMHO.


Sometimes you're limited by the need to use applications which aren't
capable of running on more than one server at a time.  In other cases,
its obscenely expensive to run an application on more than one server
at a time. Nor is the split-brain problem in active/active systems a
trivial one.

There are still reasons for using active/passive configurations, but
be advised that active/active solutions have a noticeably better
success rate than active/passive ones.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the NANOG mailing list