From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Simon Subject: Re: Has replicated mount failover been implemented? Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <430834.18700.qm@web81808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <470E7FDB.5090202@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <470E7FDB.5090202@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: Peter Staubach Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org We have two pairs of VCS HA-NFS servers (one in each data center), so each entry in auto_appl is the VIP for the HA pair. Should one portion of the cluster in the data center local to the compute engines fail it will just fail over to the other cluster node and client-side failover would not be used. If however the entire cluster fails or is unavailable for whatever reason the duplicate VCS HA-NFS server in the other data center resumes serving data, albeit at a slightly slower rate due to latency over the MAN. This site to site failover is where we currently depend on Solaris client-side failover. --- Peter Staubach wrote: > I don't think that I understand what the client side > failover > of Solaris was being used for in this configuration. > If the > server is truly HA, then shouldn't the NFS service > be able to > failover from one server to the next with minimal > interruption > on the clients? > > The Solaris client side failover required relooking > up all > file handles which referred to the dead server, so > it wasn't > cheap either. > > Thanx... > > ps > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/