[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | WinNT-Clusters |
| Notice: | Info directories moved to DECWET::SHARE1$:[NT_CLSTR] |
| Moderator: | DECWET::CAPPELLOF |
|
| Created: | Thu Oct 19 1995 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 863 |
| Total number of notes: | 3478 |
853.0. "Order of failover objects important?" by TYCHE::BOSTERS () Wed Jun 04 1997 01:13
Hi,
just found out that the order of failover object within a failover group has
major impact on client behaviour.
We have a cluster with NT4.0 SP3 and Cluster V1.1 SP1 (released version)
no cluster clients, all access via Cluster Netbios names from IP failover obj.
Created a failover group with an IP failover object first and the disk failover
object second. In case of a failover clients connected via the cluster netbios
name and accessing data on the shared disk almost immediate break with
"network path not found" or "network name was deleted" and the like.
Rearranged the failover group so the disk failover object is first and the
IP failover object is second, now the clients experience almost no
interruption, no more error messages, no more breaks. Simply said, works
great.
Could someone more competent/knowledgeable pls. confirm this is true since
i found nothing in the documentation mentioned that the order of failover
objects can have impact on client behaviour.
Thanks,
Ulli
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 853.1 | Order is important | CHEFS::vfr750.reo.dec.com::harrisonb | | Wed Jun 04 1997 02:20 | 14 |
|
In my experience, the objects come online from top to bottom
and they go offline bottom to top.
So you would usually place the objects in a group thus:
Disk
Control Script
IP object
Can we have confirmation from the Engineering team, over to you Carl.
Brynn Harrison
|