Comment by GekkePrutser
3 years ago
Isn't that more for load balancing than failover?
For load balancing I would consider this very likely because both are equally loaded. But "failover" I would usually consider a scenario where a second server is purely in wait for the primary to fail, in which case it would be virtually unused. Like an active/passive scenario as someone mentioned below.
But perhaps I got my terminology mixed up. I'm not working with servers so much anymore.
If it's active/active failover then they get the same wear, if it's active/passive most of the components don't, but the storage might. Then again if it's active/passive, flaws can "hibernate" and get triggered exactly when failing over.
You know how they say to always test your backups? Always test your failover too.