Clustering/Failover options with Tiger Server

[Anonymous]

With clusterd being yanked from Tiger server prior to release, what are our options for clustering and failover?

I have a dp 2.0 XServe G5 that houses network home folders and publishing assets for about 150 concurrent users. The data is on a fiiber switch attached XRAID.

This system has been super reliable. However, we would like to reduce the costs that downtime may cause us, in such an event.

Ideally, I would like to add a 2nd xserve to the mix that would create a cluster. I want the 2 systems to appear like 1 system to the endusers, such that in the event of a hardware outage, the users don’t have to do anything different.

I need the solution to cluster both AFP and SMB connections.

It would be really great if it could load balance the connections when both servers are up.

Are there any solutions out there to what I want?

Thanks!

[pingu]

Just a quick update…
I was at an Apple presentation the other day introducing the new features of Leopard etc. I noticed on a couple of the slides that they were talking about Active/Active clustering for mail and iCal servers. WHen I asked the Apple bod, he confirmed that this would be based on clusterd. When I pressed him about clustering other services (namely AFP), he said he wasn’t allowed to say much, but that it was being worked on and provided everything went well would be announced later…
I wait…

[pingu]

I think you’re right Joel, I had a quick look over the docs again this morning (I think it’s stil up on the developer site, but if not anybody wanting the PDF can mail me), it does seem to be more based around active/passive and really is just a messaging system. There’s nothing in the docs about true clustering (actv/actv).
That said he seemed quite confident about his answer (I don’t want to give his name or position here for fear of getting him in hot water).
When you say the storage is XSan based in Leopard, are you referring to there being a change in filesystem architecture?
I also happened to notice one of the slides making reference to AutoFS, but I know this is more about automounting

[pingu]

I see, I think I misread what you were saying. It would of course make sense that a clustered service would require a clustered filesystem.

I am still hoping that we see either a clustered filesharing technology and/or a better failover messaging system or hopefully both!

[Author]

Posts