0

I'm currently setting up a new test environment as part of the porcess of moving to a new hosting provider. The current architecture has 3 load balanced hosts each with a local copy of all the applications, we use Octopus to deploy to all 3 servers simultaneously.

We've recently found that we need a new licence for Octopus as we've hit the server count limit however we could also move to shared storage and cut our licence costs by 60%. This would also have the beneficial side effect of preventing us from making changes on just one of the servers which can lead to errors. All of the disks reside on the same SAN and the applications do not write to the local file system.

Is there any disadvantage to storing web applications in a shared location vs local when the underlying storage mechanism is exactly the same?

Inverted Llama
  • 101
  • 3
  • https://serverfault.com/questions/125549/iis7-web-farm-local-or-shared-content It has been discussed in the past. I added some comments to include some new information you should be aware of. – Lex Li Jul 07 '18 at 14:18
  • @lexli I saw that but it appeared that the local storage option in that question was on the physical web server, this is a bit different as both solutions are based off the exact same SAN so there shouldn't be any differences in performance or redundancy as far as I can tell – Inverted Llama Jul 08 '18 at 00:22

0 Answers0