[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [K12OSN] Thoughts for my upgrade...

Chris Hobbs wrote:

Steve Wright wrote:

RAID1 is mirroring ? Do you really need 4 drives as a mirror ? The Array will only be the size of a single drive, not the sum of the drives..

[...] I meant RAID5, striped with parity. The capacity then is N-1, where N is the number of drives in the set. In my case, I have 4 35GB drives which gives approximately 105GB of storage.

I'm no guru, but I understood there had to be an odd-number of drives - generally 3 or 5 ?

Am I mistaken ?

Do you have a reason why not to use LDAP to achieve this ?

Lack of time to learn something new :) I would actually like to learn more about LDAP, and if anyone wants to recommend a book or website on how to set up a robust LDAP directory for several apps to use (authentication from both Linux and Windows systems, integration with our mail server, which can authenticate against an external LDAP server, other internal web based apps built in php which could use LDAP for auth, etc.)

There are LDAP docs and setup scripts for K12LTSP somewhere... Yet another little gem of Erics' I think... 8-)

I would suggest that the Terminal Servers' performance will suffer by reading its' binaries over NFS. IMO, each Terminal Server will be better to have its' own local binaries and libs.

I hear ya. If I can stick with purely rpm apps, I could probably use scp to push out new rpms and then ssh to run the rpm -i command. This would be pretty easy to script, now that I think about it. It falls apart a bit if I need to build apps from source.

You should be able to build an RPM from source, and then do the install from the locally made RPM... >8-/
Perhaps even put the RPM on an internal (Servers Only) website and # rpm -i from there.

If the app server a client is connected to dies, that session is going to die.

yep. If the session is running on the /Terminal Server/ and the Application is running on a (seperate) /Application/ Server, then the application will fall over, but not the session.. (?)

I don't see anyway around this. The failover I was describing would happen when say SVHSAPP03 dies. Every 6th boot, the DNS server would give out the IP for SVHSAPP03 to the terminal, which of course would fail. A simple reboot of the terminal would give it another chance (at 5:1 odds) of getting a good server. Ugly, but it would work.

What was your reasoning going to r-r DNS for your psuedo-loadbalancing ? Going back to `X -broadcast` *may* achieve the same, but without the problem you describe. I am not remotely qualified to offer that as advice, however..

Thanks for sharing.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]