Much has happened since the days when the first Beowulf cluster was deployed, but while cost still matters, today technology is the differentiator that helps keep costs in check. To get an update on IBM clustering technology, the industry and what customers are doing with clusters take a look at this interview with Dave Turek, Vice President, IBM’s Deep Computing.
What’s new with IBM’s Linux Clustering technology
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Not everyone is thrilled by clustering. It’s not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread, and some are being removed/undone as we speak.
It wasn’t a bad idea; but in some cases it just wasn’t a good one. Your mileage may vary.
Perhaps not everyone is thrilled about clustering because they used it when they shouldn’t have? I don’t see any problems with it as long as the right tool is used for the right job.
“Perhaps not everyone is thrilled about clustering because they used it when they shouldn’t have? I don’t see any problems with it as long as the right tool is used for the right job.”
Where the real trouble began is when someone yelled “it will solve a lot problems”. Well, I can tell ya it simply created more.
We completely booted two of these nice professionally RECOMMENDED,configured,and supported clusters out the door.
We couldn’t handle the support cost, and nonsense attached.
I’m not going to say MS is a cheaper deal, but this sure as hell was a lesson learned.
Just curious, but could you elaborate on these clusters you got rid of, and the problems that were encountered? Also, if you could give some idea of what they were being used for, that’d be great.
Clusters or not, using a wrong tool does bite in the back;
Google uses clusters and is insanely successful; So do i also use a cluster for everything? Obviously NO!! . If as you say some professional recommended it is the fault of that professional and not the technology;
Out of all the tasks that computers are put to , most people are exposed to only those that generally need not use clustering in any form; But there are some situations where they are more appropriate. It is not like some one just woke up one fine day and we had clustering technologies
, they evolved out of necessity, so for situations where they are not “necessary”, they are not appropriate 
I any critical 24×7 production systems where high availability is essential, it would be suicide not to use clustering.
It’s not hard to configure and i’ve never had any problems using Windows 2000 SQL Server On Advanced Server 2000 in the above scenario.
Dougie.
If you are not active active, it is not a true cluster. W/ SQL 2K clusters you can not achieve an active active scenario. It does provide redundancy, but I would by no means call it a cluster. They only way to get CLOSE to active active is to use federated views, but what good is that?