Looking for an alternative to clustering

Looking for an alternative to clustering

We are currently evaluating a number of high availability products (including Veritas clustering solutions) and would like to know if there are any other technologies out there as an alternative solution to clustering. Thanks.

    Requires Free Membership to View

    When you register for SearchStorage.com, you’ll also receive targeted emails from my team of award-winning editorial writers. Our goal is to keep you informed on the hottest topics, the latest news and the biggest challenges you face as a storage professional today.

    Rich Castagna, Editorial Director

    By submitting your registration information to SearchStorage.com you agree to receive email communications from TechTarget and TechTarget partners. We encourage you to read our Privacy Policy which contains important disclosures about how we collect and use your registration and other information. If you reside outside of the United States, by submitting this registration information you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Your use of SearchStorage.com is governed by our Terms of Use. You may contact us at webmaster@TechTarget.com.

The answer to your question is a simple one, actually. It depends. There are other technologies besides clustering that can give you high availability but it depends on what you are trying to accomplish, what types of failures you want to protect against, how high a level of availability you are trying to achieve and what your critical applications are.

For most applications, if you want to protect against a system crash, a hardware failure or some other system-wide failure, there is nothing better than failover and clustering. However, for some applications there are better technologies.

If you are putting up a Web site with a database back end for instance, the database should probably be clustered. But for the Web servers there are other technologies such as round robin DNS or redirectors like Hydra's Hydra Web, Cisco's Local Director or Veritas' Cluster Server Traffic Director. Both technologies are better than clustering at recovering from the failure of a single server, and at redirecting client requests to different hosts.

Your choice of technologies will also depend on the level of availability you need. If you are only concerned about protecting the data and not achieving high levels of uptime, then mirroring and backups are sufficient. If you are concerned about a site outage, then local clustering will not be sufficient, and you'll probably want to consider replication to a disaster recovery site. It has been my position for quite some time that high availability is what you need it to be; it's the level of availability that allows your critical systems to achieve the goals that you purchased them for in the first place. Only you know if those goals require backups, mirrored disks, clustering, or replication. And different systems have different levels of requirements.

I hope this is helpful. Please follow up if you have other questions.

Evan L. Marcus

Editor's note: Do you agree with this expert's response? If you have more to share, post it in our .HcX6azlxeJg^0@.ee83ce2!viewtype=&skip=&expand=>Administrator Central discussion forum.


This was first published in July 2002