From: mpiet@is.morgan.com (Mark Pietrasanta)
Subject: Re: Server Mirroring
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:51:42 GMT

In article <92310.201108U37127@uicvm.uic.edu>, U37127@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Oct23.065446.1502@msus1.msus.edu>, mndot@msus1.msus.edu says:
|> >
|> >In article <1992Oct23.075502.21797@slate.mines.colorado.edu>,
|> >cjmarsha@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Charles Marshall) writes:
|> >> tmunro@superior.carleton.ca (Tim Munro) writes:
|> >> :
|> >> :     I would like to be able to duplex (mirror?) a complete file
|> >> : server. ie have the servers hard drives mirrored in such away so that
|> >> : if one server dies the other will kick in automatically, much the way
|> >> : DISK mirroring works. Is this possible? Can ANW 3.11 do it? If so, can
|> >> : someone please let me know how? Many thanks in advance for any
|> >> : responses.
|> >> :
|> >> : --
|> >> : Tim Munro
|> >>
|> >> I'y pretty sure that NW 4.0 will be able to do this.  NW3.11 can not.
|> >>
|> >> Charles Marshall            Bitnet: cjmarsha@flint.mines.colorado.edu
|> >
|> >  From what I have been hearing from Novell sales/engineering people this is
|> >available on a limited basis and I quite expensive, approx. US $20,000 per
|> >server to be mirrored.  It still is not a built in function of 4.0 from what
|> >I hear, but then again, given enough monwy I think Novell will provide you
|> >with a solution
|> 
[deleted]
|> You run a TSR that mirrors all writes from one drive onto a drive on 
|> another server and thus keeps them in synch. 
[deleted]
|> Satish Movva

I also have read something in the PC rags that there is some sort of deal with
Novell to get true SFT III with 3.11 today.  

My personal feeling (after experimenting with a few alternatives) is that
the cost and energy and time _actually_ saved is not worth it until Novell
supports it at the server (which they may be doing today, I haven't actually
tested whatever they may have).  If some third party does it, than Novell
probably won't support it, and now you have another vendor to deal with
when you have workstation problems (as in the above recommendation) or server
problems if it is some bizzare kluge (like doing constant incremental backups).

If you are running something that is so mission critical that it can never
be down, well...  Otherwise, my personal feeling is to try and work on reducing
the amount of time a server will be down.  This seems to be best accomplished
by reducing the total number of vendors, software and hardware, at both the
server and the workstation.  So, if you buy Compaq, buy all Compaq for the server.
Or if you buy IBM, buy all IBM (or Dell, or Gateway, or...).  This at least
means that the vendor will likely have tested that combination, and you will
likely have either something that will work or something you can easily get
patches for.  In terms of the workstation, it's harder but possible from a
software standpoint.

This is my opinion, I'd be interested to hear what other have to say.

Mark Pietrasanta
----------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These responses are my own and in no way reflect the
views of my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell