Re: [LinuxFailSafe] Re: A proposal for a General Clustering Framework

[James Mello <kingjamm@colltech.com>]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of clustering are you talking about? Are
you talking specifically about HA, or the LB kind?

	-- Cheers
	-- James

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, David Brower wrote:

> IMO, IBM and Compaq both Got It Right when they
> put an generalized pub/sub event system in the middle
> of their cluster frameworks.   I've been pointing this
> out for a while, but it doesn't seem to have gotten any
> traction-- neither Tweedie's old proposal or Robertson's
> here have one AFAICT.
> 
> FWIW, xml-rpc is a perfectly fine mechanism for such
> an event system, once you get the subscription mechanism
> in place.  You probably also want more authentication and
> authorization than is used on things that assume private
> networks for cluster traffic.
> 
> -dB
> 
> -- 
> Butterflies tell me to say:
> "The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily 
>   represent those of Oracle Corporation."
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxFailSafe mailing list
> LinuxFailSafe@lists.community.tummy.com
> http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxfailsafe
> 


Linux-cluster: generic cluster infrastructure for Linux
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-cluster/