SUMMARY: E3800 vs. 2 x V880

From: Steven Aizic <saizic_at_rogers.com>
Date: Sat Jun 15 2002 - 08:55:37 EDT
Question:
=========
Hi All,

I'm going to set up a cluster of two nodes.  I'm wondering what the opinions
are about clustering within a E3800, or using two V880's.

Cost is not really an issue, since with Sun pricing - they are roughly the
same cost with hardware and support.

Thanks for the help.

Solution:
=========
The general concensus was that 2 V880 servers are better than
2 x E3800 servers.  People tend to agree that having two physical boxes
is worth it for 7x24 availability.

Received Answers:
=================
Wallis Peter <Peter.Wallis@iclafrica.com>
The E3800 clustering will be a clean, high availability and easily managed
solution BUT

with the proper storage selection and fibre interconnects the V880's will
allow the cluster to be implimented over two separate buildings/wings/floors
to give disaster protection against fire/flood etc which would take out the
whole E3800 cluster.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Malick <john@starinc.com>

My biggest question would be, what about a disaster? Clustering within the
3800
is fine but what happens if the room its in blows up, or power to the room
fails, etc? With two V880's or two of any physical machines would allow you to
place one in a room and the other in a remote room up to 10km away if need
be.

Just keep that in mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Stueve <andrew.stueve@wcom.com>

I would go with the two machines.  Even though a 3800 can be setup with
two domains, you don't get the redundancy that you would with two
separate machines.  With a single 3800, there are too many single points
of failure to try and run a HA cluster on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mjohnson@forsythesolutions.com <mjohnson@forsythesolutions.com>

Steven,

The issue is how you are approaching High Availability.  If you are
protecting against scheduled outages and human error, a single unit
provides an easier platform to manage versus two entirely separate chassis.
However, if you are protecting against disaster, two entirely separate
chassis are recommended.  This only holds true for disaster contained to a
single server.  For disaster beyond the single server, like a datacenter
flood, you would need an external entity (second datacenter).  Again, this
approach is varied for a second datacenter.  The second datacenter could
contain a single node that is failed to in the event of disaster (it can
either be active, passive, or standby).  However, the second datacenter
could also contain a second two node cluster (either single or separate
chassis).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert T. Kelly <rkelly@partnersdata.com>

Steven,
I recommend two V880 systems. Having two completely separate systems is
more reliable than have a "fully redundant" single system. Shared
backplanes, power sequencing, etc, can still take down a single "fully
redundant" box, the key word is "single" system.

Veritas Cluster Server or HA Technical with Echostream Replication are both
good options.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Alejandro Vega Soto <alejandro.vega@tecinfocon.com.mx>

Look , the benefit of the 3800 is the capability of segment the data bus,
in the sunfire interconnect the bus, this way you can at installation dump
the
configuration to another machine, change the domain in where you are restore
the dumped config
and boot the domain .
Of course if you segment the data bus , the performance will be affected but
you
still have no Single Point of failure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
Received on Sat Jun 15 09:00:47 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:42:46 EST