Re: active/active vs active/passive?

[Paul Clements <paul.clements@steeleye.com>]

Dan Stromberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 20:54 -0400, Paul Clements wrote:

> What it is about active/passive that is so much easier to implement than
> active/active?

There's nothing that difficult about active/active, assuming you're 
talking about the servers operating on separate (or static) data. What's 
difficult is the cluster filesystem. Those tend to be big pieces of 
low-level (read, kernel) code, and they require a distributed lock 
manager and a membership model, which are also generally implemented 
in-kernel.

Of course, without knowing the context of the speaker's reference to 
this, it's hard to say exactly what he meant or if it's even remotely 
related to what I'm talking about... :)

--
Paul