home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!UH01.Colorado.EDU!DWING
- From: DWING@UH01.Colorado.EDU (Dan Wing)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Subject: Re: Anyone doing a LAVC over T1
- Message-ID: <01GTS2G6DMQQ004FG7@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
- Date: 21 Jan 93 18:49:00 GMT
- Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
- Distribution: world
- Organization: The Internet
- Lines: 28
-
- Spike Burkhardt, spike@lmsc.lockheed.com, writes:
-
- >Hello! I need to know if anyone is running a LAVC cluster over a T1
- >link? If so could you please tell me about your experiences. If possible,
- >perhaps send me a phone number so that we can have a more interactive
- >dialogue.
-
- I set one up just to see if it would work for a few days. It was, shall
- we say, SLOW. Also had a little bit of LAT traffic on the same T1.
-
- According to a recent issue of DN&R, DEC will support running a cluster on
- a T3 "this summer ('93)" -- I'm assuming this to mean something like their FDDI
- clusters, where the machines can shadow disks back and forth, etc. If so, I
- would imagine you'd want a dedicated T3.
-
- The main problem you might have is if other traffic on the T1 takes up too
- much bandwidth, processes on your nodes may go into RWSCS trying to coordinate
- locks across the cluster. Same problem if you plan on backing up files over
- the T1 (or, in fact, over any Ethernet line - it can put quite a hit on your
- Ethernet). If you can contain the other traffic, and your own traffic (or
- prioritize your traffic over the other LAT or TCP/IP stuff on that T1) you
- might be able to do it. Your overall distance between nodes may cause
- VAXcluster state transitions, which aren't pretty if you suffer too many in too
- short of a time.
-
- -Dan Wing, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet (DGW11)
- Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver
-
-