Why, when desiring to have redundancy (many 9's of uptime) is an externally
located (single) storage pool ideal? With two servers, each with a host
adapter, running to a shared storage pool (of redundant drives) - isn't
there at least some piece of the puzzle that is non-redundant (leading to a
single point of failure)?
I'd think that two servers, fully supplied to stand on their own, possibly
located apart from each other, communicating changes to each's storage pool
would be preferred. One box might be considered master and the other slave
or they could load balance as equals. Is this type of setup used?