[cvsnt] Clustering CVSNT?

[Anders Truelsen]

> For HA you're probably looking at something like a SAN for the
> storage.

Those SAN/NAS things are prohibitively expensive...

> Just sharing drives (especially over Netbios) is probably
> worse than having a single machine, whereas things like SANs are
> designed for handling multiple clients so I'd trust the data integrity
> much more (although if one machine is sitting idle most of the time
> that's less of an issue).

In a cluster with shared disks we're nowhere near netbios sharing. Also
with CVSNT not being cluster-aware it would be an active/passive setup,
that is only on machine active at a time. The advantage would be that
data would not have to be copied from on machine to another in case of a
failure (+15Gb takes a while to copy).

> OTOH a good single machine + a good UPS will probably give you enough
> uptime for most cases...  CVSNT availablility doesn't have to be that
> high, provided people can update/commit reasonably regularly.

We're running an IBM x232 with RAIDed disks, plenty of RAM attached to
an UPS unit.
We've had two fatal crashes within the last 10 days, one in normal
working hours. With +200 developers depending on it we cannot afford to
have them sitting around even for short periods. 
Also we want a bullet-proof setup; our repositories are simply too
valuable to take any chances with.

Regards,
anders

> 
> Tony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cvsnt mailing list
> cvsnt at cvsnt.org
> http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt