Clustering vs. Fault-Tolerant Servers

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday October 3, 2005 @07:01AM from the i-don't-want-my-server-to-tolerate-faults dept.

mstansberry writes "According to SearchDataCenter.com fault-tolerant server vendors say the majority of hardware and software makers have pushed clustering as a high-availability option because it sells more hardware and software licenses. Fault-tolerant servers pack redundant components such as power supply and storage into a single box, while clustering involves the networking of multiple, standard servers used as failover machines." Perhaps some readers on the front lines can shed a bit more light on the debate based on both proprietary and Linux-based approaches.

1 of 321 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:It depends on what you want to do. by Donny+Smith · 2005-10-03 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, in case you haven't noticed, it's late 2005 now.
Some things have changed, for example Windows 2003 Server came out and MSCS is now quite a decent HA solution.

(BTW, the grandparent post didn't say that Microsoft's own clustering solution was lame, he made a general statement about all clustering software for the Windows platform).