From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Jackson Subject: Re: Status of Fault Tolerance feature? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:20:13 -0600 Message-ID: <20130129092013.6c18a222@PeterVenkman> References: <20130128164621.08843426@PeterVenkman> <0AA77D40-C291-47B0-9F42-04F65C196A25@opennodecloud.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Andres Toomsalu Return-path: Received: from theiggy.com ([66.220.1.110]:59200 "EHLO mail.theiggy.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753858Ab3A2PUS (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:20:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <0AA77D40-C291-47B0-9F42-04F65C196A25@opennodecloud.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:16:13 +0200 Andres Toomsalu wrote: > But is there any other projects in (planned) development with the > same goal(s)? I haven't heard of any. But then again, a lot of things get developed in secret and then dumped on the community. > Im just really puzzled that while QEMU/KVM being kind a > mature solution already no true fault tolerance/HA solutions exist > (Im aware about stateless HA solutions with RHCS etc stacks - but > its hardly the "true" HA) - and if I get it correctly - no real > plans/development in that direction also near-term? Most people that I know that have tried similar solutions on other products give up on it because the performance is abysmal. It's generally faster and better tested to do this stuff at the application layer. > > Kind regards,