Clustering advantages/disadvantages

Hello!

If we have 2 InterWorx servers (VPS with 20 GB harddisk space) and do clustering - there will be a CM and a node machine.
Management is the done (mainly) on the CM (add new customers/sites).

How will be the disk space be used on both servers for web/mail etc.?
Are these files saved on both of the servers? Or is the data distributed 50:50 on both?
The “General Clustering FAQ” tells me: All data continues to be stored on the Director server.

We have will have many, smaller accounts/websites and do not really need load balancing for them (most of them low bandwith sites).
Are there any other advantages for us to use clustering?
Would you recommend it to us anyway. For what reason?

If we configure the 2 servers as standalone siteworx servers, if one server goes down the other should still work (with synchronized DNS Servers).
Am I right?
In comparison if the cluster manager goes down - all sites are offline - or am I wrong?

Thanks!
Mars

How will be the disk space be used on both servers for web/mail etc.?
Are these files saved on both of the servers? Or is the data distributed 50:50 on both?
The “General Clustering FAQ” tells me: All data continues to be stored on the Director server.

> I believe that you don’t understand completely how the clustering works. There is only one partition which holds the data for the various user domains. The nodes then connect to that single drive via NFS, and then depending on your load-balancing rules, the individual node assigned to serve that website/mail/database when the cluster manager receives a request. The node that the load balancer assigns a node to handle the http /mail/database request, and then the packets are rewritten to look as though it is coming from the cluster manager, so to the end user it seems that the cluster is actually a single physical server/vps. The disk space on individual nodes only holds things such as the operating system and various internet daemons. Long story short, you are better off having a single large physical or virtual disk mounted at the cluster manager (as all nodes have access to this data via NFS). Effectively the nodes get the data in SiteWorx users from the cluster manager but deliver content on their own while masquerading as a single server.

We have will have many, smaller accounts/websites and do not really need load balancing for them (most of them low bandwith sites).
Are there any other advantages for us to use clustering?
Would you recommend it to us anyway. For what reason

> As said before InterWorx will send traffic to whatever node the load balancer deems to be the most apt at serving a page at that time (depending on the various parameters of the load balancer, of course).

If we configure the 2 servers as standalone siteworx servers, if one server goes down the other should still work (with synchronized DNS Servers).
Am I right?
In comparison if the cluster manager goes down - all sites are offline - or am I wron

> As of the date of this post, true high availability is not currently possible. However, we have a developer actively spending all of his time making sure that this works ASAP (hopefully within a month). The cluster manager is still a single point of failure; however, this hopefully should be corrected.
The absolute good news is that if a node goes down for whatever reason, the cluster manager will ask the remaining nodes to serve traffic. This should occur seamlessly for any end user.

Similarly, if you are interested in implementing a cluster manager that will extremely rarely go down is to use a VPS as the cluster manager with the nodes being physical hardware.